


















































































































































































































































































































































































































































Glass 

Book 












V 





























A 

























■ 

♦ 












- 









. 

' 





















■ 

.. 




















* 








, 





















* 









' 






































* 




















































































• . 





















































■' . 

















































f 






































. 




' 





■ 



















































x 






























































* 






. I 














■ 



























•*, • 


















SENATE 


63d Congress \ 
Sd Session / 


Document 
No. 981 


CONDUCT OF THE EXCISE BOARD OF THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


REPORT 

OF THE 

SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE 
UNITED STATES SENATE 


PURSUANT TO 

S. RES. 522 

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL COMMITTEE 
TO INVESTIGATE THE CONDUCT OF THE EXCISE 
BOARD IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 



PRESENTED BY MR. SHEPPARD 
March 4, 1915.—Ordered to be printed, with accompanying illustrations 


WASHINGTON 

1915 










SENATE 


63d Congress 1 
Sd Session / 


Document 
No. 981 


CONDUCT OF THE EXCISE BOARD OF THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


REPORT 

OF THE 


67 

FS7 


SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

V 

PURSUANT TO 

S. RES. 522 

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL COMMITTEE 
TO INVESTIGATE THE CONDUCT OF THE EXCISE 
BOARD IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 



PRESENTED BY MR. SHEPPARD 
March 4,1915—Ordered to be printed, with accompanying illustration! 


WASHINGTON 

lfllB 










b 


D 


«V\ 





n. of o. 

APR 30 1315 







I 















x \ 

b- 

J 

4 

CONTENTS. 


Report of tlie committee. vn 

Statement of Senator William Hughes. xiv 

Index of exhibits presented at the hearings. v 

Hearings before the committee. 1 

Testimony of— 

Henry S. Baker. 190 

James F. Beckett. 351 

Joseph H. Boswell. 310 

Cotter T. Bride. 185 

William T. Burdine. 230 

Louis Bush. 258 

Patrick F. Carr. l . 280 

John E. Catts. 174,179 

Peter K. Chaconas. 360 

D. Edward Clarke. 311 

Dr. John T. Cole.*. 180, 300 

Mary L. Colton. 312 

Levi Cooke. 364 

Jeremiah Costello. 269 

Jeremiah A. Costello. 356 

Edward Curry.*. 351 

James A. Duvall. 350 

William A. Engel. 261 

Frederick L. Fishback. 378 

Michael P. Fitzsimmons. 263 

W. Gwynn Gardiner. 324 

Fred H. Geyer. 384 

Timothy Hanlon. 288 

William P. Hess. 242 

Waldo C. Hibbs. 3 

Rev. Paul R. Hickok........ .. 285 

Mason L. Howes. 177 

Herbert W. Kline. 354 

Wilton J. Lambert. 317 

Rev. B. Lambrides. 358 

Peter Lattemer. 307 

Joseph G. Lewis. 384 

Peter J. Lynagh. 272 

Michael Lynch. 308 

Rev. John MacMurray. 293 

John J. Madden. 172 

Patrick J. McDonald. 353 

Edgar A. Miller. 254 

Rev. George A. Miller. 275 

Preston E. Miller. 249 

James T. Newkirk. 243 

Matthew E. O’Brien. 283 

Jeremiah O’Connor. 248, 304 

Julius I. Peyser. 277 

William H. Ramsey. 314 

Rev. Arthur Randall. 231 

Thomas Ruppert. 225 

Thad B. Sargeant. 227 

Henry Schneider. 236 

Harry F. Seamark. 359 


hi 

























































IV 


CONTENTS. 


Testimony of— Pa 8 e - 

Albert E. Shoemaker. 66,103, 333 

Robert G. Smith. 142, 300, 332,336 

John L. Sprinkle. 255 

Florence A. Sullivan. 352 

John M. Trant.. 229 

Rev. George Leroy White. 136 

Salinda A. Wilmot. 362 

Andrew Wilson.. 27, 63,326 

Hotel licenses issued in the District of Columbia.. 387 

Letter of Albert E. Shoemaker to Senator Sheppard denying that the Anti- 

Saloon League opposed every application for license. 389 

Letter of Alexander H. Bell submitting a compilation treating on the con¬ 
struction of the excise law. 390 

Letter of Robert I. Miller relative to the presence of Gen. Smith at the races 

in Saratoga. 391 

Letter of Rev. Edwin C. Dinwiddie to Senator Morris Sheppard relative to 

the testimony of Levi Cooke. 392 

Letter of the President of the Board of Commissioners of the District of 

Columbia transmitting the measurements to certain saloons. 396 

Illustrations as to measurements. 393 

















INDEX TO EXHIBITS. 


Page. 

Reports of Inspector Waldo G. Hibbs. 8 

Letter of Senator Sheppard to District Commissioners requesting measurement 

of certain distances. 22 

Statement of excise board in response to certain testimony. 23 

Excise liquor law for the District of Columbia. 29 

Law relative to licenses within 1 mile of Soldiers’ Home. 35 

Law relative to licenses within one-half mile of Government Hospital for Insane.. 36 

Rules and regulations of the excise board pertaining to the excise law. 36 

Objections of Attorney Albert E. Shoemaker tamles and regulations. 40 

Reply of excise board to Albert E. Shoemaker relative to his objections to rules 

and regulations. 41 

Letter of Andrew Wilson to Commissioner Siddons, regarding license of Louise 

Gordon. 43 

Reply of Commissioner Siddons to Andrew Wilson, regarding license of Louise 

Gordon... 43 

Letter of Andrew Wilson to excise board, regarding license of Louise Gordon.. 43 

List of hotels granted saloon licenses having less than 50 rooms. 45 

Reply of excise board to Andrew Wilson, regarding sale of intoxicants by 

Thomas Raftery to minors. 49 

Reply of excise board to Andrew Wilson, regarding fees to attorneys for pro¬ 
fessional services. 49 

Opinion of Justice Stafford in the case of Columbus v. Sheehy. 51 

Letter of Andrew Wilson to the excise board regarding the western fire-limit 

zone. 56 

Letter of Andrew Wilson to the excise board relative to the license of L. J. 

Cohen. 58 

List of Baloons within 400 feet of a house of religious worship, public school- 

house, etc., presented by Albert E. Shoemaker. 79 

Supplemental list of saloons within 400 feet of a house of religious worship or 

school, presented by Albert E. Shoemaker. 90 

List of saloons granted licenses in residential districts, presented by Albert E. 

Shoemaker. 90 

List of wholesale places granted licenses in residential districts, presented by 

Albert El. Shoemaker. 91 

List of saloons within 300 feet of inhabitated alleys, presented by Albert E. 

Shoemaker. 96 

List of clubs granted licenses in residential districts, presented by Albert E. 

Shoemaker. 102 

List of hotels granted licenses having less than 50 rooms, presented by Albert 

E. Shoemaker. 104 

List of hotels granted licenses having more than 50 rooms, presented by Albert 

E. Shoemaker. 106 

Report of Acting Capt. J. L. Sprinkle regarding the Grand Hotel. 108 

List of cases charging violation of the excise law pending in the police court.. 112 

Classification of barroom licenses, presented by Albert E. Shoemaker. 124 

Decisions as to laws governing change of entrances. 131 

Letter of Chairman Sheehy to the assistant corporation counsel relative to 

changing the fire limits. 170 

Reply of the assistant corporation counsel to the excise board relative to the 

changing the fire limits. 171 

Protest submitted to excise board against granting of license to Tim Hanlon... 184 

List of properties owned by brewers or brewery companies. 218 

Letter of Mrs. Charles Hurdle to Senator Jones relative to refusal of license- 221 

Letter of E. F. La Porte to Senator Sheppard relative to Marks Hotel. 222 

Plat showing location of barroom at 415 East Capitol Street. 224 

Letter of Rev. Arthur Randall to the president of the board of education pro¬ 
testing against the granting of a license to John O’Donoghue. 233 

Letter of James A. O’Shea to Senator Sheppard relative to Marks Hotel. 288 

Testimonials relative to Jeremiah O’Connor. 304 

y 






































VI 


INDEX TO EXHIBITS. 


.* 

Pag*. 

Letter of excise board to Jackson A. Winner relative to the location of barrooms 


near the Central Union Mission...... 316 

Letter of Colin H. Livingstone to excise board relative to location of saloons 

in western fire-limit zone. 318 

Reply of excise board to certain testimony before the committee. 322 

Letter of Andrew Wilson to the President relative to the fitness of Joseph C. 

Sheehy for membership on the excise board. 330 

Letter of J. A. Costello to Senator Morris Sheppard requesting the subpoena of 
certain witnesses regarding the proximity of his business to a Greek church.. 356 

Letter of Frederick L. Fishback to the excise board, calling attention to the 

entrances at the saloons of Geyer and O’Hanlon and O’Connor. 379 

Letter of Frank C. Daniel and Frederick L. Fishback to the excise board, call¬ 
ing attention that the entrance to the barroom of Karl Xander and Murray’s 
earn is less than 400 feet from the south entrance of the McKinley Training 

School..•. 379 

Statement of Cotter T. Bride. 382 

Statement of Henry S. Baker. 383 

Illustration showing measurement to saloon of— 

John J. Allen, 807 North Capitol Street, No. 1. 397 

Frank L. Ash, Twenty-eighth Street NW., No. 22. 439 

John J. Brosnan, 506 Four-and-a-half Street SW., No. 5. 405 

Henry S. Byrd and Martin J. Barry, 521 G Street NW., No. 24. 443 

Margaret Casey, 114 H Street NW., No. 10. 415 

W. J. & Jeremiah Costello, 600 G Street NW., No. 9. 413 

John J. Daly, 306 Sixth Street NW., No. 20. 435 

Michael Daly, 1319 Seventeenth Street NW., No. 2. 399 

John J. Graff, 222 Seventh Street SE., No. 8. 411 

William Hannan, 1519 Seventeenth Street NW., No. 25. 445 

Hugh F. Harvey, 1913 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., No. 18. 431 

John F. Killeen, 1314 Wisconsin Avenue NW., No. 14. 423 

Eugene T. Lyddans, 1422 Wisconsin Avenue NW., No. 23. 441 

L. McCormick, 227 Pennsylvania Avenue SE., No. 27. 449 

Patrick J. McDonald, 643 Pennsylvania Avenue SE., No. 7. 409 

Luther L. McMillen, 1421 G Street NW., No. 21. 437 

John E. Mergner, 415 East Capitol Street, No. 19. 433 

Charles H. Morris, 2029 K Street NW., No. 15. 425 

John D. O’Connor, 918 Ninth Street NW., No. 3. 401 

John T. O’Day, 921 Ninth Street NW., No. 11. 417 

James J. O’Donnell, 333 Pennsylvania Avenue SE., No. 6. 407 

August H. Plugge, 1317 Seventh Street NW., No. 4. 403 

Frank C. Poch, 900 Four-and-a-half Street SW., No. 17. 429 

Michael H. Raftery, 1903 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., No. 26. 447 

John F. Schriner, 730 Fourteenth Street NW., No. 12. 419 

Mary T. Schulz, 607 G Street NW., No. 13. 421 

Robert H. Snook, 825 Seventh Street NW., No. 16. 427 





































REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE 
CONDUCT OF THE EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF 
COLUMBIA. 


To the Senate of the United States: 

We, the committee appointed by the President of the Senate to 
investigate the conduct of the excise board in the administration of 
the excise law of the District of Columbia, respectfully report as 
follows: 


The resolution authorizing this committee was passed in the fol¬ 
lowing terms: 

[S. Res. 522.] 


Resolved , That the special committee appointed by the President of the Senate to 
investigate the conduct of the excise board is hereby further authorized to investigate 
fully into the manner in which the excise law, so called, is being administered in 
the District of Columbia, and said committee is hereby authorized to send for persons 
and papers, to administer oaths, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to employ 
stenographers to report such hearings as may be had at a rate not to exceed $1 per 
printed page. The expense of such hearings shall be paid out of the contingent 
expenses of the Senate, upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the said 
special committee. The said committee is also authorized to sit during the sessions 
of the Senate. 


We have examined many witnesses and submit herewith a tran¬ 
script of the evidence we have taken. 

We have also made personal investigations of various premises in 
controversy. 

1. We find that the present excise board was appointed to admin¬ 
ister what is commonly known as the Jones-Works excise liquor law 
of the District of Columbia, which became effective July 1, 1913, and 
that said board was originally composed of Joseph C. Sheehy, chair¬ 
man; Robert G. Smith, and Henry S. Baker. Mr. Sheehy resigned 
from the board early in 1914 and was succeeded as chairman by 
Mr. Robert G. Smith, who remains chairman. Cotter T. Bride was 
appointed to the vacancy thus occasioned and is now a member of 
the board. 

2. We find that the excise board in administering the excise law 
has adopted certain rules which in many instances change the sub¬ 
stance and letter of the law. 

{a) The law as to hotels is as follows: 

Hereafter no license shall be issued to a hotel having less than 50 bedrooms for 
guests, nor to any hotel the character of which, or the character of the proprietor or 
manager of which, is shown to be objectionable to said board. 

The rule adopted by the board in the administration of this clause 
of the law is as follows : 

Sec. 2. No license shall be issued to a hotel, as such, having less than 50 bedrooms 
for guests. 

VII 



vin 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


As the result of this unauthorized change of the law by the board, 
several hotels with less than 50 bedrooms for guests have been 
granted licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The board 
granted these hotels licenses under the name of restaurants. The 
fact remains, however, that they are licensed as hotels by the Dis¬ 
trict government, and are not entitled to liquor licenses under the 
true spirit and purpose of the law. 

(b) The law provides: 

That no license shall be granted for any saloon or barroom on any side of any square, 
block, or tract of land where less than fifty per centum of the foot frontage, not includ¬ 
ing saloons or hotels and clubs having barroom licenses under this section, is used for 
business purposes. 

In this connection the board adopted the following rule: 

Sec. 6. Beginning November first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, no barroom 
license shall be granted on any side of a street where less than fifty per centum of the 
foot frontage between intersecting streets, excluding the part of buildings wherein 
barroom licenses are held, is used for business purposes: Provided , That this restriction 
shall not apply to hotels and clubs. 

This proviso is not in the law and is wholly unauthorized. 
Under it, however, the board has licensed a number of hotels and 
clubs on sides of squares or blocks with less than 50 per cent of 
the foot frontage used for business purposes. 

Licenses for barrooms have been given to hotels or clubs where the 
hotel or club is the only business on the side of the square in which 
the same is located, and where the district is wholly residential. 

(c) The law provides: 

That no minor under the age of eighteen years shall be allowed to enter or be per¬ 
mitted to remain in any place where intoxicating liquors are sold, other than a hotel, 
restaurant, or club. 

The rule of the board on this subject is as follows: 

Sec. 18. Minors under the age of eighteen may enter a wholesale liquor store in a 
case where the licensee also sells merchandise other than intoxicating liquors, and 
where the intoxicating liquors are carried in stock and sold in a section of the store set 
apart for that purpose by a railing: Provided , That no minor under the age of eighteen 
shall be permitted to enter the place so set apart: And provided further , That no intoxi¬ 
cating liquors shall be sold, given away, or in any way disposed of to a minor. 

This rule permits minors to enter stores where intoxicating liquors 
are sold, contrary to the express provision and real intent of the law. 

(d) The law provides: 

No licensee under this section shall sell, give away, or dispense any intoxicating 
liquors to any person between the hours of one o’clock a. m. and seven o’clock a. m., 
nor on Sundays, or Inauguration Day; and between said hours , and on Sundays , and 
Inauguration Day every barroom or other place where intoxicating liquors are sold 
shall be kept closed. 

The rule of the board is as follows: 

Sec. 18 (a). For the purpose of cleaning up and doing other necessary work licensed 
premises may be entered or occupied by licensees and their regular employees between 
six forty-five o’clock a. m. and seven o’clock a. m., except on Sundays and Inaugura¬ 
tion Day; and between the hours of ten o’clock a. m. and twelve o’clock noon on Sun¬ 
days and Inauguration Day: Provided, That neither said licensees nor their employees 
shall drink, sell, give away, or dispense any intoxicating liquors during the times 
mentioned. 

Members of your committee saw a number of individuals in several 
saloons during the two-hour Sunday period permitted by the board 
for cleaning-up purposes, and in several saloons during this time saw 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


IX 


men who were apparently bartenders, dressed as if for dispensing 
liquors, and from one saloon came two or three young men dressea 
in business clothes. 

(e) In section 20 ( b) of the rules the board has added what is in 
effect a complete new section of the law as follows: 

Sec. 20 (6). Except in case of the death of a licensee, any person or persons duly 
authorized by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia may, with the consent 
in writing of the excise board, conduct the business of a licensee for a period of not 
exceeding sixty days. In such cases posting of the licensed premises shall not be 
required. 

This gives express authority for receivers, trustees, and other repre¬ 
sentatives of licensees appointed by the Supreme Court of the District 
of Columbia to conduct the business of a licensee, for which no provi¬ 
sion whatever is made in the excise law. 

3. The law places the maximum limit upon the number of bar¬ 
room licenses at 300, but it gives to the excise board the discretion 
to license any smaller number it may see fit to permit. The board 
has not exercised its discretion for a smaller number. The testimony 
shows that it is the intention of the board to keep the number at 
300, thereby adopting the construction most favorable to the saloons. 

4. The law provides: 

Nor shall any barroom licensee establish more than one bar under his license. 

This provision has been violated in two instances by permitting 
the operation of double bars under a single license—one at the corner 
of Fourteenth Street and Rhode Island Avenue and another at the 
corner of Fourteenth and U Streets. 

By the operation of a double bar we mean that in each case the 
bar was extended into two separate rooms by making about a 10-foot 
opening between the rooms and running the bar through the opening 
and on both sides of the partition separating the rooms. 

5. The law also provides: 

Nor provide or permit to be used more than one entrance to said barroom from the 
street * * * unless the excise board shall especially permit an extra entrance. 

This provision clearly means that no more than one entrance 
shall be provided unless some special condition or reason warrants 
it; and naturally the board would be expected to grant but few 
such permits. According to the report of the board, out of 39 appli¬ 
cations for extra entrances 38 were granted and only one refused. 

6. The law provides that: 

No saloon, barroom, or wholesale liquor business shall be licensed west of the western 
line of the fire limits as now established. 

Between the time of the passage of the law and the time it was to 
go into effect, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia so 
changed the fire limits as to bring two saloons from prohibited terri¬ 
tory into license territory; and the territory changed was so small 
as to raise the unavoidable presumption that it was made for the 
special purpose of keeping the saloons within the license limits. 

Protests were filed with the board against the granting of the 
licenses to the saloons thus brought within license limits, and the 
conditions were fully disclosed. Although it had the discretion to 
refuse these licenses, even though the location might be outside the 
prohibited zone, and although a plain attempt had been made to 


X 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


nullify the positive provision of the law, the board granted the 
licenses. 

7. The law provides: 

Not more than three saloons or barrooms, other than in hotels or clubs, shall be 
permitted upon one side of a street between intersecting streets. 

Contrary to this provision of the law, four saloons are now per¬ 
mitted to operate on E Street between Thirteenth and Fourteenth 
Streets NW., one of the principal business sections of the city. The 
saloon on the corner of Fourteenth and E Streets, opposite the New 
Willard Hotel, which is owned by Miller Bros., had been refused a 
license while its entrance was on E Street because there were three 
other saloons located on that side of the block. License was then 
applied for by Miller Bros, as fronting on Fourteenth Street, and the 
license was granted. Immediately the window fronting on Four¬ 
teenth Street was broken out, made into a door, the entrance on E 
Street was closed, and the board licensed the saloon although its 
location was exactly where it was before. 

8. The law provides: 

No saloon, barroom, or other place where intoxicating liquor is sold at retail shall be 
licensed, allowed, or maintained within 300 feet of any alleyway occupied for residence 
or of places commonly called slums, except upon the unanimous vote of all threes 
members of said excise board. 

The plain purpose of this provision was to remove barrooms a rea¬ 
sonable distance, at least, from these places and protect to that extent 
the poor people living in them from the baneful influences of saloons. 
The board has apparently disregarded this purpose. It has granted 
licenses in practically every instance where applied for within 300 feet 
of these places, and there are instances where there are three or four 
or more barrooms located within 300 feet of a single alley. 

9. The law provides: 

No saloon, barroom, or other place wherein intoxicating liquor is sold at retail or 
wholesale, other than hotels and clubs, shall be licensed, allowed, or maintained 
within four hundred feet of any public schoolhouse, or a now located or established 
college or university, or within four hundred feet of any now established house-of 
religious worship, measured between the nearest entrances to each by the shortest 
course of travel between such places of business and such public schoolhouse, college, 
or university, or established house of religious worship. 

The board has construed the language “ measured between the 
nearest entrances to each by the shortest course of travel” to mean 
a square-cornered or right-angled measurement; that is, having in 
many instances, where saloons are located within 400 feet of schools 
or places of religious worship by the shortest course of travel which 
pedestrians would naturally and conveniently take, resorted to the 
square-cornered measurement, thereby permitting the saloon to 
operate. However, in several instances, even by the square-cornered 
measurement the saloons are located within the prohibited dis¬ 
tance, particularly Graffs saloon, No. 222 Seventh Street SE., where 
by square-cornered measurement, even around a parking which he 
himself constructed evidently for the purpose of making the dis¬ 
tance farther, the saloon is still within 400 feet of the Eastern High 
School. S 

Also at Schriner’s place, 730 Fourteenth Street NW., which by 
square-cornered or other measurements is located within 400 feet 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


XI 


of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church. In one instance, at 
Mergner’s place, No. 415 East Capitol Street, an iron fence was 
permitted to be constructed across a sidewalk close to the building 
in order to throw the measurement and course of travel around the 
parking and to make the distance more than 400 feet from a public 
school at No. 25 Fifth Street SE. 

Several other barrooms have been granted licenses within 400 feet 
of public schoolhouses, churches, and colleges. 

We submit herewith plats (see p. 393) made at our request by the 
District surveyor, giving the measurements at the above and other 
places, and showing the distances between saloons and churches, 
schoolhouses, and colleges by the shortest course of travel to be in 
many instances less than 400 feet. 

10. In this connection attention is called to the fact that wherever 
a building is not used exclusively for religious or school purposes the 
board contends that it is not a house of religious worship or a school 
or college within the meaning of the excise law. It has, therefore, in 
several instances permitted saloons to be operated within 400 feet of 
buildings where large schools are conducted, or where large con¬ 
gregations carry on religious worship. 

11. We direct attention to that clause of the law which requires 
that no license shall be granted any hotel the character of which, or 
the character of the proprietor or manager of which, is shown to said 
board to be objectionable. 

The most notable instance of a violation of this clause is as follows: 
The proprietor of the Grand Hotel, which occupies Government 
premises, was granted a license notwithstanding he had been con¬ 
victed of dispensing liquor to a minor girl, and his license formerly 
canceled, and notwithstanding it was shown he had organized a cor¬ 
poration which he controlled and in the name of which he was apply¬ 
ing for a license, and that a strong report was made against him by 
the police. At the hearings conducted by the board on the question 
of giving him a renewal of license in October, 1914, the police report 
was as follows: 

The manager, Edward L. Gardiner, conducts a garden in the basement of this hotel 
where they have music and singing. Dancing is allowed on a platform set aside for 
that purpose. This is a resort for street walkers and women of questionable character, 
and the result is a meeting place for men and women. In my opinion these conditions 
are objectionable, in connection with a bar, and should be eliminated. 

This police report was signed by J. L. Sprinkle, acting captain 
first precinct. 

This testimony was corroborated by Sergt. Catts, of the vice squad 
of the District police, both at the hearings before the excise board 
on the question of renewing Gardiner’s license and before our 
committee. 

It also developed in the testimony before our committee that cases 
are now pending against the proprietor of this hotel, Gardiner, for 
selling liquor to a minor. 

The testimony before this committee also shows that other hotels 
were granted licenses which had been conducted in a disreputable 
manner. 

12. The excise board has refused licenses to properly conducted 
barrooms and has granted them to disreputable places in the same 


XII 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


neighborhood, over strong protests. A saloon on the north side of 
Pennsylvania Avenue had been carried on for many years by Mr. 
Hurdle. No complaint had been made against him. He was refused 
a license, or transfer of a license, and across the street, the Philadel- 

E hia House, which was clearly shown by the testimony before us to 
e a most disgraceful and disreputable resort, was granted a license. 
The testimony showed that the Philadelphia House is a place of resort 
for colored prostitutes and for men and women of questionable 
character. 

13. The law also provides: 

That the personal representative of any deceased licensee may within thirty days 
after the death of such licensee transfer said license in accordance with the provisions 
of this law, touching transfers of licenses. 

In violation of this provision the board permitted Mrs. Gordon to 
operate the bar of her husband long after his death, although the 
attention of the board was called to the violation of the law, and they 
did not act to prevent such violation until pressure was brought upon 
them through one of the District Commissioners, and although the 
corporation counsel had rendered an opinion that the bar was being 
operated contrary to the law. 

14. The law provides: 

That the interior of every barroom shall at all times when selling is prohibited be 
exposed to full view from the street, without obstruction by screens, blinds, curtains, 
stained glass, bottles, boxes, signs, or other material, except in the case of clubs 
licensed under this section and hotels having only an interior barroom, which shall 
be exposed to full view from the corridors or passageways leading to the entrance or 
entrances to such barroom. 

The committee found on a tour of personal observation that but 
little attention is paid to this provision of the law. Glass doors and 
windows are stained and are obstructed by curtains, partitions are 
frequently erected across the barroom a short distance from the 
entrance, and the only compliance with this provision of the law in 
most cases was the drawing aside for just a short distance of one 
curtain. 

15. The law provides: 

Par. 3. That the said board shall appoint a clerk at a salary of $1,500 per annum, 
and an inspector with police powers at a salary of $1,500 per annum. Said inspector 
shall make inspections as may be required by this section, under the orders of the 
board, and make full report of such inspections to the board.. He shall wear a badge 
indicating that he is such inspector of the excise board. 

Instead of appointing an inspector and requiring him, as contem¬ 
plated by the law, to inspect places of license holders, the board ap¬ 
pointed a stenographer under the name of inspector, who does the 
stenographic work of the board and makes a stenographic record of 
the proceedings before the board, and his principal time is occupied 
by clerical work. He inspected only 130 places prior to November 
14, 1914, and has made no inspections whatever since that time. 
This official testified before our committee that no orders or instruc¬ 
tions regarding inspections had been given him by the board, but 
that he has been made simply a clerk or stenographer. 

Licenses have been granted for barrooms on the sides of a square 
or block where there is no other substantial business, and in many 
cases where it is evident that there is not 50 per cent of the frontage 
used for business purposes. Plain violations of this provision have 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


XIII 


been permitted by allowing the saloon entrances to be changed from 
one side of the square to another side of the square without any 
change in the saloon itself or its location. 

In some instances it is apparent that buildings of a very unsub¬ 
stantial character have been constructed for the purpose of making 
business frontage in order to secure a barroom license, and the board 
has apparently approved such action by granting the license. 

A frontage occupied by a board fence, with a business sign on top, 
but with the ground occupied only by brick or tiling or boards or old 
barrels, or not occupied at all, has plainly been counted as frontage 
used for business purposes in order to grant a barroom license. 

16. We regard it as significant of the attitude of the board that it 
has not exercised its discretion in favor of the schools as against the 
saloons by refusing licenses to saloons which may be located only 
a few feet beyond the 400-foot limit. The actual distance between 
the Polk School and the McKinley Manual Training School is 838.5 
feet. Just across P Street from the Polk School is the saloon located 
in the Hotel Thyson. In the case of this hotel it is apparent that 
additional rooms were constructed in an attempt to comply with the 
law, and the board granted a license notwithstanding tne fact that 
it was just across the street from a public school. The Hotel Thyson 
bar fronts on Seventh Street and can not be distinguished from an 
ordinary separate bar. 

Farther along the block, on the same side of the street with the 
Thyson Hotel is the Murray saloon, only 402.6 feet from the entrance 
to the Polk School, and 435.9 feet from the south door of the McKinley 
Manual Training School. Immediately opposite Murray’s, on the 
other side of Seventh Street, are two other barrooms. In other 
words, within approximately 400 feet of these large schools are four 
saloons. This is a clear case of the exercise of a discretion in the 
interests of the saloons and against the schools. The same condition 
prevails in a number of cases as to churches. 

17. It should be stated that in practically all instances where the 
board has issued licenses to saloons under circumstances that con¬ 
stituted a violation or evasion of the true purpose or spirit of the law, 
all phases of the situation were brought fully to the attention of the 
board through numerous protests and representations of citizens 
before the issuance of the license. 

18. The committee finds no evidence of corruption or venality on 
the part of any member of the board, and believes that each member 
should be exonerated from any charge or imputation of this char¬ 
acter. The committee believes, however, that a careful and dis¬ 
passionate review of the evidence before us as to the conduct of the 
board in the administration of the excise law shows that it has dis¬ 
regarded the underlying purpose of the law; that it has nullified 
its most beneficial features; and that it has encouraged and approved 
plain evasions and perversions of the law. It is the judgment of 
the committee that the board has resolved practically every doubt 
as to law or fact in the interest of the saloons. It has shown no 
proper comprehension of its duties in the execution of a law framed 
m the interest of morality and good government. The policy of 
the board in fostering the liquor traffic to the fullest extent per¬ 
mitted by the law, and in many instances at the expense of both 


XIV 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


its spirit and its letter, is fraught with increasing danger to the 
health, peace, and morals of the people of the District of Columbia. 

Dated at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, 
March 4, 1915. 

Morris Sheppard. 

Wm. H. Thompson. 
Wm. P. Dillingham. 
W. L. Jones. 


STATEMENT OF SENATOR HUGHES. 

Because of a death in my family I was unable to be present at the 
hearings of the committee at which the testimony was taken. There¬ 
fore, I feel that in justice to the excise board, the members of which 
I believe to be upright, honorable men, I should not give my approval 
to the report of the majority. 


Wm. Hughes 





HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE 
TO INVESTIGATE FULLY INTO THE MANNER IN 
WHICH THE EXCISE LAW, SO CALLED, IS BEING 
ADMINISTERED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


1 









FIRST DAY. 


TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1915. 

Special Committee, 

United States Senate, 

Washington , D. C. 

The special committee met at 2 o’ clock p. m., in the room of the 
Committee on Indian Affairs of the United States Senate, in the 
Capitol. 

rresent: Senators Sheppard (chairman), Thompson, Jones, and 
Dillingham. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, the committee will come to order. 
With the consent of the committee a copy of the resolution author¬ 
izing this investigation will be here set out in the record. 

(The resolution is here printed in full, as follows:) 

[S. Res. 522.] 

Resolved , That the special committee appointed by the President of the Senate to 
investigate the conduct of the excise board is hereby further authorized to investigate 
fully into the manner in which the excise law, so called, is being administered in the 
District of Columbia, and said committee is hereby authorized to send for persons 
and papers, to administer oaths, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to employ 
stenographers to report such hearings as may be had at a rate not to exceed $1 per 
printed page. The expense of such hearings shall be paid out of the contingent 
expenses of the Senate, upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the said 
special committee. The said committee is also authorized to sit during the sessions 
of the Senate. 

Senator Jones. Mr. Chairman, I move that if anyone except a 
member of the committee desires to ask any witness any question, 
such question shall be reduced to writing and handed to the chairman. 

(The motion being seconded, the question was taken and the motion 
was agreed to.) 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, I have asked Mr. Waldo C. Hibbs, the 
inspector for the excise board, to appear to-day and testify. He is 
here, and I will ask him to take the stand and be sworn. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. WALDO C. HIBBS. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Hibbs, state your full name and your local 
address 

Mr. Hibbs. Waldo C. Hibbs, No. 3016 Dumbarton Avenue NW. 

The Chairman. What is your official position? 

Mr. Hibbs. Inspector for the excise board. 

The Chairman. When were you appointed? 

84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3-2 3 



4 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Hibbs. About September 4; early in September. I can get that 
exact date for the record later. 

The Chairman. What year? 

Mr. Hibbs. 1913; a year ago this September. 

The Chairman. When did the present board begin operations ? 

Mr. Hibbs. About September 4. It was appointed, but there was 
some delay about getting the exact members, and it did not get down 
to work. 

The Chairman. You were appointed by the board ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What are your duties ? 

Mr. Hibbs. My duties are as inspector under the direction of the 
board to do what the board tells me to do. That is what I have 
always understood, in general. 

The Chairman. Does the law authorizing your appointment specify 
your duties ? 

Mr. Hibbs. The law says that the inspector shall make inspections 
by direction of the excise board. 

The Chairman. Shall make inspections ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Yes. 

The Chairman. Of what? 

Mr. Hibbs. Of licensed places. 

The Chairman. Have you been assigned any other work besides 
that of inspecting saloons? 

Mr. Hibbs. I have, sir. 

The Chairman. What work is that ? 

Mr. Hibbs. That of reporting stenographically the hearings before 
the excise board in regard to licenses. 

The Chairman. What connection has that work with the work of 
an inspector? 

Mr. Hibbs. It was simply a part of the work that had to be done, 
in view of the great pressure the first year upon the exicse board, and 
its lack of more clerical force. 

The Chairman. As a matter of fact, then, the stenographic work 
has no necessary relation to inspection work ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Not necessarily, except as part of the record of the 
particular licensed places to which each hearing would refer. 

The Chairman. I understand, but the clerical work of taking down 
these hearings is really not a part of the inspection work ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Not so stipulated in the law; no. 

The Chairman. How many of those hearings did you take down? 

Mr. Hibbs. I think I have the record here so far of 763 hearings, 
some lasting nearly all day, the average being an hour or an hour 
and a half or five hours. 

The Chairman. Please read the paragraph in the law there author¬ 
izing your appointment as inspector. 

Mr. Hibbs. It is paragraph 3 of the law, which reads as follows: 

Par. 3. That the said board shall appoint a clerk at a salary of $1,500 per annum 
a^id an inspector with police powers at a salary of $1,500 per annum. Said inspector 
shall make inspections as may be required by this section, under the orders of the 
board, and make full report of such inspections to the board. He shall wear a badge 
indicating that he is such inspector of the excise board. The board shall keep a full 
record of all applications for license, of all recommendations for and remonstrances 
against the granting of licenses, and the actions taken thereon. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


5 


The Chairman. Have you your badge with you ? 

Mr. Hibbs. No, sir; I haven’t it with me. 

The Chairman. How is that? 

Mr. Hibbs. I haven’t it with me to-day. 

The Chairman. What kind of a badge is that? 

Mr. Hibbs. It is a small badge that was made some time ago, of a 
general shield shape; not like a policeman’s badge. It is a special 
badge that was made. 

The Chairman. How much of your time has been taken up in 
taking down these hearings? 

Mr. Hibbs. There have been hearings before the board for months 
at a time, every day, with lapses between, and sometimes I was all 
day at hearings, and there would be five or six hearings a day, and 
again sometimes a hearing would take all day. That is about the 
best I can say. Of course, I have been engaged on other matters, 
in routing out the inspections for the members of the board themselves 
who made inspections of all transfer places, and special matters that 
came up in which they wished to be particularly informed; and they 
inspected also personally all licensed places when the time came for 
applications for renewals—when applications for renewal had been 
made, I should say. They went out and inspected all places. 

The Chairman. Are you a stenographer? 

Mr. Hibbs. Yes, fair; I will not say that I am an expert. 

The Chairman. You found all of the 130 saloons you inspected to 
be complying with the regulations and with the law ? 

Mr. Hibbs. I did, so far as the law is concerned; and as to matters 
of better administration, you will find many things of that sort on the 
reports. 

The Chairman. And you were not required to inspect the remain¬ 
ing saloons for which you have no reports here ? 

Mr. Hibbs. No, sir; from the fact that it was impossible to do both. 

The Chairman. It was impossible to do the clerical work they 
assigned to you, and the inspecting work for which you were ap¬ 
pointed ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. You say there are 300 saloons in the city ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Known as barrooms in the law; yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Including barrooms in hotels and restaurants 
and places of that kind ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Oh, they have all to come under what is called the 
barroom license. 

Senator Thompson. In that number you include everything ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Yes; all except wholesale places. 

Senator Thompson. How long has that number been maintained at 
300? 

Mr. Hibbs. Since November 1. 

Senator Thompson. Since November 1 of last year? 

Mr. Hibbs. No; this past November. The law says that beginning 
in November, 1914, there shall not be more than 300 saloons. 

Senator Thompson. Do you maintain it at that figure all the time ? 

Mr. Hibbs. We can not go above that. 

Senator Thompson. Do you ever go below it ? 

Mr. Hibbs. There were 297 .granted the 1st of November, and then 
there were 3 that have been added since then. 


6 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Thompson. It is the purpose of the board, then, to keep 
it at the maximum number ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Now, I could not answer for the board. 

Senator Thompson. That is what they seem to intend, by making 
it 300 since November. 

Mr. Hibbs. I would rather have you ask them. 

Senator Thompson. That is what they did ? 

Mr. Hibbs. They have granted up to this time 300 barroom 
licenses. 

Senator Thompson. If one of them should go out of business, you 
would inspect another place to see if it could go in; is that it? 

Mr. Hibbs. No; not unless application were made for it. 

Senator Thompson. Are there not applications now for a large 
number more ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Not for originals; no, sir; only for transfers. I think 
there are about 8 applications pending for transfers. 

Senator Thompson. Your principal duty, as I understand it, is to 
take down the proceedings when the board is hearing on these 
applications ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Yes, sir; and any incidental clerical work. Of course 
that reaches out and includes other work. 

Senator Thompson. Have you made transcripts in any cases ? 

Mr. Hibbs. I have made various transcripts. 

Senator Thompson. Have you them with you? 

Mr. Hibbs. No; I was not asked to bring them up. 

Senator Thompson. Would not the committee like to have them? 

The Chairman. Yes; we are going to ask for them from the com¬ 
missioners. 

Senator Thompson. He said that he had made transcripts, and I 
thought maybe he would bring them up. You have access to them? 

Mr. Hibbs. Yes; they are part of what you call the minutes of the 
board. 

Senator Thompson. What is the principal proceeding on an 
application ? 

Mr. Hibbs. The application is filed in due form according to the 
provisions of the act, the place is posted for at least 15 days, all 
protestants are notified that hearing will be held, the licensee is 
notified. 

Senator Thompson. Notified in what way ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Well, usually by a little written notice. The hearing 
being set for a particular time they appear and the board hears the 
applicants and those persons who are against the granting of the 
license. 


Senator Thompson. When you make this personal inspection that 
you claim to have made in these 130 cases, what do you do ? What 
did you do there ? 

Mr. Hibbs. I go into a place and I do not announce myself. I go 
into a place and I am quite well known to all licensees, however— 
look about and see that things are sanitary; that there is no disorder 
there; that the place is apparently being conducted in a proper 
manner, and make a few notes on a sheet of paper or in a book, or 
whatever I have with me, and then later transcribe it to the perma¬ 
nent record. 

Senator Thompson. Then is there a hearing afterwards on that ? \ |j 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 7 

Mr. Hibbs. No; I do not examine the places which are proposed 
to be licensed. The board does that, personally. 

Senator Thompson. That was my understanding of it. Then, I 
understood wrong ? 

Mr. Hibbs. These, you understand, are the routine day-to-day 
examinations. The reports which you have in your hand are the 
reports of the routine day-to-day examinations. 

Senator Thompson. I got a wrong impression from your testi¬ 
mony. I thought you had examined 130 of these places as inspector ? 

Mr. Hibbs. No; I have examined simply 130 licensed places under 
the provisions- 

Senator Jones. You examined them after the licenses were granted 
instead of before ? 

Mr. Hibbs. After the licenses were granted. The board itself 
looked into all places where licenses were to be granted. 

Senator Thompson. Then you do not know anything about what 
they do? 

Mr. Hibbs. The board itself ? No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. You do not have anything to do with that 
part of it, except to take down hearings ? 

Mr. Hibbs. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. I got a wrong impression from your testimony. 

The Chairman. As a matter of fact, most of his time has been 
taken up with stenographic work in connection with the hearings, 
when his duty as inspector would necessitate his examining these 
saloons from time to time—the entire 300 ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Are you the inspector who is appointed under 
paragraph 3 of the excise law ? 

Mr. Hibbs. As inspector. You notice paragraph 3 says: 

The board shall keep a full record of all applications for license, of all recommenda¬ 
tions for and remonstrances against the granting of licenses, and the actions taken 
thereon. 

Somebody had to do that work. 

Senator Jones. What about this clerk who is provided for at 
$1,500 a year? 

Mr. Hibbs. He has a great deal to do. 

Senator Jones. Did not he do any of that work? 

Mr. Hibbs. Incidentally, in connection with it, he did a good deal. 

Senator Jones. What has he to do? 

Mr. Hibbs. He has records to keep; he has various errands for 
the board. I think you will find he has a good deal to do. 

Senator Jones. Did he not take any of this testimony on applica¬ 
tions ? 

Mr. Hibbs. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. He did not take any of that ? 

Mr. Hibbs. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. What was he doing when all those hearings were 
being held ? 

Mr. Hibbs. There is a good deal more work than hearings going 
on in the board. 

Senator Jones. That is clerical work, is it not ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Yes, sir. 



8 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Jones. You did not understand you were to do steno¬ 
graphic work when you were appointed as inspector with police 
powers ? 

Mr. Hibbs. It was found afterwards that this would have to be done. 

Senator Jones. And that the clerk they had appointed could not 
do it ? 

Mr. Hibbs. There was nothing stated about appointing a clerk 
who was a stenographer, that I recall. 

Senator Jones. So that the clerk they appointed could not do 
those things, anyway ? 

Mr. Hibbs. You understand that the record that was kept under 
the old law was not a stenographic record. 

Senator Jones. I understand. 

Mr. Hibbs. It was decided after this board came in- 

Senator Jones. I understand. 

Mr. Hibbs (continuing). And after I was there, that it would be 
best to take a stenographic record, and they did that. 

Senator Jones. Why did they not have the clerk do it ? 

Mr. Hibbs. I doubt if that was—I do not know anything about 
that being in contemplation previous to that time. 

Senator Jones. They have made out of you practically a clerk, 
have they not, thus far ? 

Mr. Hibbs. I have had a great deal of clerical work to do. 

Senator Jones. Yes. Now, you have not made any inspections 
since the 1st of November to see specially how these saloons were 
conducted and whether they were complying with the law, have you ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Not this year. 

Senator Jones. No. Has the board ever issued any directions to 
you with reference to that ? 

Mr. Hibbs. I have received no written instructions; no, sir. 

Senator Jones. Have you received oral instructions? You see, 
the law says: 

Said inspector shall make inspections as may be required by this section, under the 
orders of the board, and make full report of such inspections to the board. 

Have they issued any instructions to you with reference to inspect¬ 
ing saloons to see whether or not they were complying with the law ? 

Mr. Hibbs. They have not ordered me to get out and inspect the 
saloons; no. My work has kept me there. 

Senator Jones. In the office ? 

Mr. Hibbs. A great deal. I have been out incidentally to look up 
any little matter, very often that did not require any report. 

Senator Jones. You have not gone out, however, for the specific 
work of going around with police powers to see that the saloons were 
complying with the law ? 

Mr. Hibbs. No, sir; except as the reports I have brought here show 
you. 

(The reports of Mr. Hibbs are here printed in full, as follows:) 

Office of the Excise Board of the District of Columbia, 
inspector’s reports. 

December 5, 1913. 

4 B. R. 1343 E NW. Ernst Gerstenberg. Inspected p. m. No comment 
necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


9 


Dec. 5, 1913. 

7 B. 1331-1333 E NW. Shoomaker Co. (Inc.). Inspected p. m. Aug. W. Noack, 
Er. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


B 9. Michael Morris, 3004 M NW. 
toilet included. Condition good. 


May 28, 1914. 

Mixed trade. General repairs being made; 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D ( C. 


May 26, 1914. 

B 16. John J. Sullivan, 1331 35th NW. Toilet good. Condition excellent. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


26 B. R. 
necessary. 


922 Pa. Ave. NW. Geo. J. Bessler. 


Dec. 10, 1913. 

Inspected p. m. No comment 
W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


Dec. 11, 1913. 

33 B. Patrick J. O’Keefe, 904 Pa. Ave. NW. Inspection p. m. No comment 
necessary. 


W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


41 B. Chas. K. Heath (Charles Hotel), 
necessary. 


Dec. 11, 1913. 

Inspected above date. No comment 
W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


44 B. R. 
above date. 


Dec. 10, 1913. 

Levi Woodbury, 6th and Pa. Ave. NW., St. James Hotel. Inspected 
No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


April 9, 1914. 

48 B. 1338 14th NW. John F. Meeneharf Co. Toilet to be refitted. Colored and 
white trade; continuous bar. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


B 51. George T. Harper, 
excellent. 


May 26, 1914. 

3285 M NW. White trade. Toilet good. Conditions 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


B 60. Patrick F. Carr, 
tions excellent. 


May 26, 1914. 

3605 M NW. White trade. Toilet excellent. Condi- 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 











10 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


77 B. 350 Pa. Ave. NW. Michael J. Lynch, 
advised to have toilet painted or kalsomined. 


Dec. 9, 1913. 

Inspected above date a. m. Licensee 
W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Feb. 6, 1914. 

94 B. 601-3 7th NW. Myer M. Stern. Inspected. Complaint as to nuisance of 
toilet use by customers made by tenants of 637^ F NW. Found toilet of bar con¬ 
nected with public hallway of office building in which barroom situated, and was in 
effect public toilet. It was suggested to licensee that door to public hallway be kept 
closed and locked. Licensee agreed to this, admitting that toilet had become a 
public one for neighborhood, though supposed to belong to his premises. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 8, 1913. 

98 BR. R. 1312 E NW. Louis P. Costley. Inspection p. m. No comment 
necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 

Dec. 10, 1913. 

103 B. John Fitzmorris, pres. 640 Pa. Ave. NW. Commercial Ho. Co., Inc. 
H. E. E. Inspected above date. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, Z>. C. 

May 15, 1914. 

B 105. Wm. Xander, 3238 M NW. Toilet in process of change. Conditions fair. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 9, 1913. 

106 B. R. Edelin, Wm. J., 348 Pa. Av. NW. Inspected above date a. m. No 
comment necessary. Licensee advised as to necessity for clean toilets in barrooms. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 10, 1913. 

Ill B. R. Herman C. Ewald, 604 Pa. Ave. NW. No comment necessary. Extra 
entrance granted Mar. 5, 1914. 


Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


April 29, 1914. 

B 115. 918 9th St. NW. John D. O’Connor. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 9, 1913. 

120 B. Mades, Charles. 300 Pa. Ave. NW. Inspected above date a. m No 
comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

_ Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 

May 19, 1914. 

B 124. Tim. H. O’Connor, 1217 E NW. Mixed trade. Toilet to be changed 
Fair. Rear yard not used by licensee. Conditions there bad. H.O notified Condi- 
tions fair. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 











EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


11 


Dec. 11, 1913. 

135 B. Hotel. 301 Pa. Av. NW. John Zirwes, Hotel Vendome. Inspected 
above date. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 

May 19, 1914. 

B 136. Fritz Herzog, 1115 E NW. White trade. Rest toilet excellent. Ordered’ 
to close one door or make application for E. E. Application made and E. E. granted. 
Conditions excellent. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 

April 29, 1914. 

B 140. 1015 I, NW. Rest. Frank Endres. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. (7. 


April 9, 1914. 

142 B. 1917 14th St. NW. Robt. Allen. Toilet about to be moved upstairs. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


144 B. Michael M. Lyons, 906 Pa. Ave. NW. 
ment necessary. 


Dec. 10, 1913. 

Inspected above date. No com- 
W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


May 19, 1914. 

B 145. Wm. R. Fosbender, 406 9th NW. Conditions excellent. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


150 B. Neviaser, I. M., 215 Pa. Ave. NW. 
ment necessary. 


Dec. 9, 1913. 

Inspected above date a. m. No com- 
W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. (7. 


B 152. Francis J. Stanton, 1205 Wis. Ave. NW. 
Conditions excellent. 


May 28, 1914. 

Toilet suggested be refinished. 
W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


April 29, 1914. 

B 154. 1412 N. Y. Ave. NW. Rest. Chas. A. Eckstein. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


May 19, 1914. 

B 160. Ward Savage. 444 9th NW. Toilet good. Condition excellent. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


May 26, 1914. 

B 162. Jas. W. Wardell, 3603 M NW. Toilet excellent. Excellent conditions. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


B 163. 
necessary. 


April 29, 1914. 

Cochran Hotel, Rosa M. Cochran, 14th and K NW. cor. No comment 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 












12 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


May 28, 1914. 

B 167. Thos. F. Keliher. 1514 Wis. Ave. NW. Mixed trade. Toilet old but 
clean. Recently painted. Conditions excellent. (Question of proximity to church.) 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 

Dec. 5, 1913. 

171 B. R. 1411 Pa. Ave., NW. Gustav Buchholz. Inspection p. m. No com¬ 
ment necessary. 

* W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 

May 19, 1914. 

B 177 Barbara Groener, 1109 E NW. Toilet fair. Newly whitewashed. Very 
old building. Conditions fair. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


B 188. 
building. 


May 19, 1914. 

Tobias Bush, 1110-12 E NW. Toilets to be changed. Condition poor. Old 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 5, 1913. 

192 B. 623 G NW. John M. Kirby, pres. Metropoiltan Co. (Inc.). Inspected 
p. m. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 11, 1913. 

193 B. Hotel. 613 Pa. Ave. NW. T. A. McKee, pres. Southern Hotel Co. (Inc.). 
Inspected above date. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 8, 1913. 

199 B. R. 1234 Pa. Ave. NW. A. W. Hancock. Inspected p. m. Question of 
doors to be removed between front and rear rooms referred to excise board and listed 
for inspection by board. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


May 15, 1914. 

B 204. Edward Mannix. 3059 M NW. Old building. Rear yard neat and well 
ventilated. Conditions excellent. Toilet good. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


P 


Dec. 8, 1913. 

206 B. John H. De Atley. 1222 Pa. Ave. NW. Res. Inspection above date 
. m. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspertor Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 5, 1913. 

212 B. R. 1313 E NW. Jas. W. Gray. Premises clean, though in an old build¬ 
ing. Ordered to disinfect frequently and whitewash toilet. Ordered to remove 
signs advertising venereal medicines. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 

Dec. 11,1913 

214 B. 605 Pa. Ave. NW. John E. Buckey. Inspected above date. No com¬ 
ment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 












EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


13 


Dec. 10, 1913. 


227 BR. G. C. Campbell, mgr. Keystone Hotel Co. 482 Pa. Ave. NW. 
spected above date. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 
Inspector Excise Board , D. 


In- 


C. 


Dec. 6, 1913. 

236 B. Wisconsin Ave. extended Tenleytown. Wm. H. Achterkirchen. In¬ 
spected a. m. No comment necessary, except that toilet is rendered damp by seepage 
through walls from ground outside and walls will not hold corrective applications, 
although they have been tried, according to the proprietor, a number of times. Ad¬ 
vised to use disinfectants and licensee promised to keep toilet sanitary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


Dec. 9, 1913. 

242 B. Wiedeman, Joseph. 200 B NW. Inspected on above date a. m. Ad¬ 
vised as to necessity for cleanliness of toilet. Suggested clearing up of cellar and 
advised more ventilation by opening of windows in addition to ventilation already 
existing through grating. Ordered to make application for extra entrance on 2d St. 
NW. Order for same issued. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


Dec. 11, 1913. 

243 B. 335 Pa. Ave. NW. Angelo A. and Frank S. Messino. Inspected above 
date. Advised to paint toilet and keep same in better condition. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


April 29, 1914. 

B 245. 1219 N. Y. Ave. NW. Rest. Elizabeth Atzel. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , JD. C. 

May 28, 1914. 

B 246. Michael Y. Moran. 3011MNW. Mixed trade. Toilet good. Conditions 
excellent. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 

May 15, 1914. 

B 252. J. F. Tennant. 3219 M NW. Conditions excellent. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 

Dec. 10, 1913. 

253 BR. Stephen Chaconas. 468 Pa. Ave. NW. Inspected above date. No com¬ 
ment necessary. w 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 

May 15, 1914. 

B 256. Richard Cook. 3401 M NW. Advised to clean up yard. Toilet in pro¬ 
cess of change. Conditions good. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 

May 26, 1914. 

B 260. Conrad Schroeter. 3326 MNW. Mixed trade. Toilet old. Building old. 

Conditions fair. _ TT 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 

May 26, 1914. 

B 264. Jos. J. Kelly. 3294 MNW. Colored trade. Toilet fair. Conditions good. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 












14 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Dec. 5, 1913. 

265 BR. 1743 Pa. Ave. NW. Wm. S. and L. S. Probey. Inspected p. m. No 
comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


April 9, 1914. 

266 B. Capitol Construction Co. The Portner, 1453 U NW. Inspected above 
date. Toilet O. K. Side room with tables. 


W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


275 BR. 1002 Pa. Ave. NW. T. W. Dunworth. 
necessary. 


Dec. 8, 1913. 

Inspection p. m. No comment 
W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


May 19, 1914. 

B 276. Robert H. Kearney, 901 E NW. New outfit. Condition excellent. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


B 279. Wm. Doyle. 1218 Wis. Ave. NW. 
(Alley in rear inhabited?) 


May 28, 1914. 

Toilet clean. Conditions excellent. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


April 29, 1914. 

B 280. 1001 N. Y. Ave. NW. Hugh J. McGinness. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C, 
Dec. 9, 1913. 

283 B. Kronheim, Jacob. 123 Pa. Ave. NW. Inspected on above date a. m. 
Toilet, tiled floor. Ordered to clean up accumulation of dirt in angles of floor and 
wall. Licensee’s barkeeper complained of poor plumbing work as cause of seepage. 
Inspector of plumbing notified Dec. 12. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


May 26, 1914. 

B 291. Ellen Gallaher. 3328 M NW. Mixed trade. Old building. Toilet old, 
poor. Stated inspector plumbing would give time on repairs until decision made as 
to continuance under excise law Nov., 1914. Conditions fair. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 

. April 9, 1914. 

297 B. 1942-1944 14th NW. Toilet good. Ordeied to clean out refuse room. 
Colored and white trade. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 

Dec. 11, 1913. 

301 B R. 329 Pa. Ave. NW. Chas. H. Hurdle. Inspected above date. No com¬ 
ment necessary, except that licensee was advised to paint toilet and warned as to 
necessity of keeping toilets in proper condition. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 

Dec. 10, 1913. 

309 B. David J. O’Connell. 636 Pa. Ave. NW. Inspected above date. No com¬ 
ment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 











EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


15 


May 26, 1914. 

B 310. John Keady. 3314 M NW. Mixed trade. Toilet good. Conditions good. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 

April 29, 1914. 

B 312. 831 14th NW. John T. Crowley. White and colored bar. Slate toilet, 
C air condition. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 

April 9, 1914. 

320 B. 15th and (1426) Pa. Av. NW. Inspected above date. Ordered to make 
request for E. E. Toilet renewed 3 years ago; slate. Used by patrons of theater. 
Good condition. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 

Dec. 8, 1913. 

326 BR R. 1216 Pa. Ave. NW. Moses H. Dade. Inspected p. m. No comment 
necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 

Dec. 5, 1913. 

337 B. 605 15th NW. Henry A. Lehman. Inspected p. m. No comment 
necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 9, 1913. 

344 B. 1908 Pa. Ave. NW. John Donovan. Inspected above date p. m. Licen¬ 
see advised to have toilet painted. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 8, 1913. 

348 B. Samuel J. Steinberger. 1015 D NW. Inspected p. m. above date. No 
comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 5, 1913. 

353 B. 1315 E NW. Louis Bush. Inspected p. m. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 12, 1913. 

355 B. 414-41610th NW. Abraham Cohen. Inspected above date. No comment 
necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 11, 1913. 

356 B. Ralph L. Steinhardt. 417 11th NW. R. Inspected above date. No 
comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 8, 1913. 

358 BR. 1004 Pa. Ave. NW. Thos. McCarthy. Inspected p. m. No comment 
necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 












16 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


May 19, 1914. 

B 359. Frank Wolf. 512 12th NW. White trade. Rest. Toilet excellent. 
Conditions good. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


B 362. Shoreham Hotel, J. Maury Dove, pres, 
comment necessary. 


April 29, 1914. 

NW. cor. 15th and H NW. No 
W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


367 B. P. E. and E. A. Miller, 
necessary. 


Dec. 5, 1913 

1349 E NW. Inspected p. m. No comment 
W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 9, 1913. 

378 B. 2006 I NW. Hugh F. Harvey. Inspected p. m. Pool tables in rear, not 
in use; pool balls removed. Licensee says he intends to leave tables on premises when 
he leaves the same. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 11, 1913. 

379 B. R. 311 Pa. Av. NW. Floyd A. Roman (Southern Hotel). Inspected 
above date. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


383 B. Lewis, John G. 
comment necessary. 


Dec. 9, 1913. 

109 Pa. Ave. NW. Inspected above date, a. m. No 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


387 B. 1704 Pa. Ave. NW. Jas. P. McGrann. 
necessary. 


Dec. 5, 1913. 

Inspected p. m. No comment 
W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 10, 1913. 

393 B. R. EE. 936 Pa. Ave. NW. Carl Hammel. Inspected p. m. No comment 
necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


B 395. David J. Sullivan. 1200 E NW. 
advised to repaint walls. Condition good. 


May 19,1914. 

White trade. Old building. Toilet good; 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 5, 1913. 

406 B. R. 1706 Pa. Ave. NW. Geo. R. McGlue. Inspected p. m. Advised re¬ 
moval of suggestive pictures (2 small), which was done. Question as to necessity for 
further removal of partition referred to excise board and listed for inspection by them. 
Most of partition originally removed to make one room of barrooms. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 











EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


17 


Dec. 5, 1913. 

407 B R. 1335 E NW. W. A* Engel. Inspected p. m. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


B 410. 


Patrick J. Cook, 3214 M NW. 


Conditions fair. 


May 15, 1914. 


W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


413 B. 110 1st NW. See special report March 28, 1914. 


April 9, 1914. 


Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


April 9, 1914. 

419 B. 1827 14th NW. Geyer, Frederick H. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


Dec. 5, 1913. 

421 B R. 1716 Pa. Ave. NW. E. C. E. Ruppert. Inspected p. m. Requested 
removal of venereal medicine cards from toilet. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


April 9, 1914. 

422 B. Peck, Clarenace J. 1926 14th NW. Toilet being repaired. Colored and 
white trade. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 

May 19, 1914. 

B 426. Louis Hodges. 407 9th NW. EE. Condition excellent. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 

Dec 8, 1913. 

427 B. Adolph Loehl. 1203 Pa. Ave. NW. Inspected above date p. m. No 
comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 

Dec. 11, 1913. 

431 B R. 451-457 Pa. Av. Hy. Achterkirchen (Hotel Fritz Reuter). Inspected 
above date. Advised to remove suggestive picture. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 

Dec. 5, 1913. 

433 B. 415 13th NW. James A. Duffy. Inspected p. m. Place in good condi¬ 
tion. Man sleeping in chair at table. Advised barkeeper not to permit anything of 
the kind. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


April 29, 1914. 

B 435. NE. cor. 15th and I NW. Bellevue Hotel. Peter Taylor, jr. No com- 
ment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 













18 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


May 15, 1914. 

B 437. Nathan Sugar Rcrs. 3033 M NW. Toilet fair. Conditions fair. Place 
■clean, but run-down old building. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 5, 1913. 

4^0 B H. 415-417 13th NW. Sterling Hotel Co. (Inc.). Inspected p. m. T. P. 
Taylor. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 12, 1913. 

451 B. 405 10th NW. Wm. S. Johnson. Inspected above date. No comment 
necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 9,* 1913. 

456 B. Pa. Ave. and 18th NW. Lewis Hotel Co. (Inc.). Inspected above date 
p. m. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


May 19, 1914. 

B 461. J. A. Donnelly. 1219 E NW. Mixed trade. Toilet fair. Conditions 
fair. Old building. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 12, 1913. 

463 B. 407 10th NW. T. Edmund Dailey. Inspected above date. No comment 
necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 

May 15, 1914. 

B 467. Thos. F. O’Keefe. B. U. Graham and J. A. Toomey, recrs. 3258 M NW. 
Condition fair. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 

May 19, 1914. 

B 471. Harrington Hotel Co. (Inc.) 432 11th NW. Hotel. New building. 
New fixtures. Condition excellent. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


May 19,1914. 

B 466. Henry M. Marks. 1000 E NW. Rest. Toilet good. Conditions good. 
Application to be made for extra entrance. 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 

April 29, 1914. 

W 2. Morris L. Wolpe. 916 9th NW. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 

Dec. 10, 1913. 

5 Wh L. Ashby W. Woodward. 610 Pa. Av., mgr. James Clark Distilling Co. 
(Inc.). Inspected p. m. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 














EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


19 


April 29, 1914. 

17. Samuel Schwarz. 1428 N. Y. Ave. NW. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


Dec. 5, 1913. 

25 WL. 1737 Pa. Ave. NW. Jos. Bush. Inspected p. m. No comment nec¬ 
essary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


April 9, 1914. 

31 W. 1135-1137 14th NW. Grimes, Samuel Taylor. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


April 9, 1914. 

46 W. 1409 U NW. Sydney Guggenheim. No toilet. No comment necessary, 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


W 48. Thos. J. Molloy. 


May 15, 1914. 

3243 M NW. Conditions good. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


May 15, 1914. 

W 53. George W. Manogue, tr. as Manogue and Jones, groceries. 3150 M NW. 
Directions as to erection of railing at rear. Conditions good. Small display. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


W 54. 


Patrick J. Barron. 3275 M NW. 


May 15, 1914. 

Conditions good. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


W 55. Simon Gordon. 3403 M NW. Groceries. 
• rail. Conditions good. 


May 26, 1914. 

Instructed as to erection of 
W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


April 9, 1914. 

63 W. Jos. Richards Co. 1408 14th NW. No comment necessary. Rail O. K. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 

Dec. 13, 1913. 

68 W L. . Steam and Fawsett. 1355-1357 Wis. Ave. NW. Inspected p. m. Rail¬ 
ing built since stated by inspector would be necessary, instead of cabinet in front 

{ >art of store. Railing 0. K., shutting off stock room in rear to comply with regu- 
ations. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


69. W. 1834 14th NW. 
able gate. 


April 9, 1914. 

Bolcioni Paul. Brass rail O. K. Ordered to put on suit- 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 


W 81. Jos. E. Dyer. 3330 M NW. 
fire in premises. 


84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3- 


May 26, 1914. 

Excellent condition. In early part of June a 
W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board, D. C. 












20 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Dec. 10, 1913. 

85 WL. D. A. O’Connor. 462 Pa. Ave. NW. Inspected above date. No com¬ 
ment necessary. _ TT 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


86 Wb L. N. H. Shea. 632 Pa. Ave. NW. 
essary. 


Dec. 10, 1913. 

Inspected p. m. No comment nec- 
W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


May 15, 1914. 

W 88. Daniel Kantor. 3249 M NW. Conditions excellent. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


W 90. Milton Kronheim, 3218 M NW. 


May 15, 1914. 

Excellent. Very orderly arrangement. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


Dec. 10, 1913. 


92 WL. Frank Hume, pres. Frank Hume (Inc.). 454 Pa. Ave. NW. Inspec¬ 
tion above date. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


April 29, 1914. 

W 98. 808 9th NW. G. A. Pessagno. No comment necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


Dec. 8, 1913. 

101 WL. 1200 Pa. Ave. NW. S. D. Minster. Inspection p. m. Notified to make 
application for extra entrance on D St. NW. Order issued. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


104 WhL. Adolph F. Sauber, tr. as Adolph 
Inspected above date. No comment necessary. 


Dec. 10, 1913. 

F. Sauber Co. 480 La. Ave., NW. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


May 15, 1914. 

W 109. G. W. Offutt Co. 3209 M NW. Groceries. Directions given as to keep¬ 
ing gate of rail closed. Apparently heavy current business, conditions good under 
circumstances. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


April 9, 1914. 

110 W. 1929 14th NW. Fernando R. Sari. Package groceries. No comment 
necessary. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , D. C. 


May 26, 1914. 

W 112. Capital Liquor Co. (Inc.). 3279-81 M NW. Conditions excellent. 

W. C. Hibbs, 

Inspector Excise Board , Z). C. 












EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


21 


Senator Jones. You have not done any of that since November? 

Mr. Hibbs. Not since November. We had 523 hearings to write 
up for this last year. 

Senator Jones. Yes; I understand that. I do not understand that 
was your duty as inspector under the law, though apparently that is 
what they have made your duties to be. Did you not understand 
when you were appointed inspector under the law that it was largely 
your duty to see that saloons were complying with the law as ak 
inspector ? 

Mr. Hibbs. Under the orders of the board? 

Senator Jones. Yes, certainly; but the board has not issued any 
orders as a matter of fact, and since the 1st of November you have 
not been making any investigations to see whether they were com¬ 
plying with the law or not ? 

Mr. Hibbs. No, not this year—this license year—I have not. 

The Chairman. Did they ever ask you to inspect conditions in 
the saloon in the Hotel Grand? 

Mr. Hibbs. No; they have not. 

The Chairman. Did they ever ask you to inspect the conduct of 
the Hotel Ebbitt in the conducting of its bar and the serving of 
liquors ? 

Mr. Hibbs. They have not. 

The Chairman. Or the Tremont ? 

Mr. Hibbs. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Have they directed you to investigate the charges 
regarding certain saloons being on nonbusiness streets or in residence 
districts ? 

Mr. Hibbs. No, sir; that I do not believe is a part or my labors. 
That would be a judgment of the board itself. 

The Chairman. But they have not asked you to do that with any 
inspection ? 

Mr. Hibbs. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you examined at any time conditions in 
Jackson Alley ? 

Mr. Hibbs. I have not. 

The Chairman. Or have you examined conditions in Wylie 
Court ? 

Mr. Hibbs. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Or in Snow Court? 

Mr. Hibbs. No, sir. Those things are brought out by testimony 
at hearings when applications for licenses in such neighborhoods are 
made. 

The Chairman. I understand, but facts may afterwards develop 
to show those alleys have become such unfit places that saloons shall 
not operate within a certain distance of them, under the spirit of the 
law. 

Mr. Hibbs. The board, as I understand, has examined all loca¬ 
tions where there have been applications for transfer or license,, 
particularly- 

The Chairman. I am not asking you about that. I am asking 
you about the examination of conditions after licenses are granted! 

Mr. Hibbs. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about the so-called jug 
trade in the residence districts in connection with the so-called whole¬ 
sale saloons ? 


22 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Hibbs. I do not. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about whether the 
saloons—any of the saloons—are violating the regulations with 
reference to obscene pictures ? 

Mr. Hibbs. In all cases where I had noticed any picture that 
was suggestive—I did not notice any obscene pictures, as I recall—I 
have suggested to the licensee that he remove it, and in all cases that 
has been done. 

The Chairman. You have made no observations, however, of that 
character, since November? 

Mr. Hibbs. No. I know that the board itself ordered out numbers 
of pictures, especially in cases where they were large pictures or 
costly—had cost the owner some money—and- 

The Chairman. The law requires saloons on Sundays and holidays 
to have all screens removed from their windows. Have you made any 
investigation of that since November? 

Mr. Hibbs. I have not. The police are particularly interested in 
that. 

Senator Jones. Why do you suppose the law gave you police 
powers if it did not expect you to see whether the law was being 
violated or not ? 

Mr. Hibbs. In the event of any occasion to exercise those powers. 

Senator Jones. How would you know whether you had any occa¬ 
sion to exercise them if you did not make some investigation or some 
inspection ? As I understand your position, you understand you are 
not to make these inspections except upon the order of the board; is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Hibbs. That is what I understood. 

Senator Jones. And they have not issued any orders to you ? 

Mr. Hibbs. They have not done so. 

Senator Dillingham. I have had handed to me what purports to be 
inspection reports, in which I see the phrase is commonly used, “No 
comment necessary.” What does that mean? 

Mr. Hibbs. That means where there was nothing noted out of the 
way or necessary to be referred to in the report. 

The Chairman. I believe that is all now, Mr. Hibbs. 

Mr. Hibbs. I hope that I have answered to your satisfaction. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

The Chairman. Gentlemen of the committee, I wish at this point 
to put into the record a copy of a letter addressed to the district surveyor 
asking him to measure the distances between certain saloons and houses 
of worship, public schoolhouses, colleges, and universities, following 
the shortest course of travel, the shortest course a person would walk 
from the entrance over a public right of way. A list of saloons, which 
I have given him, embodies a list that was presented by Senator 
Jones in his speech in the Senate the other day, the speech which led 
to the motion for this investigation. The district surveyor is now 
at work on that matter, and in order to have the record complete a 
copy of my letter to him will be inserted at this point. 

(The letter above referred to by the chairman is here printed in full, 
as follows:) 

February 22, 1915. 

My Dear Sir: You are hereby requested by the Excise Investigation Committee of 
the United States Senate to measure the distances in feet between the saloons and 
houses of religious worship, public schoolhouses, colleges, and universities mentioned 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


23 


belowfollowing the shortest course a person may walk from entrance to entrance over 
a public right of way. In measuring between entrances you will please use the entrance 
in the saloons nearest the houses mentioned and the entrance in the said houses the 
nearest to the saloons: 

John J. Allen, 807 North Capitol Street, St. Aloysius Church. 

Michael Daly, 1319 Seventh Street NW., Church of the Immaculate Conception. 
John D. O’Connor, 918 Ninth Street NW., College of Pharmacy. 

August H. Plugge, 1317 Seventh Street NW., Church of the Immaculate Conception. 
John J. Brosnan, 506 Four-and-a-half Street NW., Jewish church on E Street. 
James J. O’Donnell, 333 Pennsylvania Avenue SE., Metropolitan Presbyterian 
Church. 

Patrick J. McDonald, 643 Pennsylvania Avenue SE., Wallach Public School. 

John J. Graff, 222 Seventh Street SE., Eastern High School. 

W. J. & Jeremiah Costello, 600 G Street NW., Greek Catholic Church. 

Margaret Casey, 114 H Street NW., public school. 

John T. O’Day, 921 Ninth Street NW., College of Pharmacy. 

John F. Schriner, 730 Fourteenth Street NW., New York Avenue Church. 

Mary T. Schulz, 607 G Street NW., Greek Church. 

John F. Killeen, 1314 Wisconsin Avenue, Methodist Episcopal Church. 

Chas. H. Morris, 2029 K Street NW., Stevens Public School. 

Robt. H. Snook, 825 Seventh Street NW., Calvary Baptist Church. 

Frank C. Poch, 900 Four-and-a-half Street SW., public schoolhouse. 

Hugh F. Harvey, 1913 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Union Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

John E. Mergner, 415 East Capitol Street SE., public school. 

John J. Daley. 306 Sixth Street NW., Central Union Mission. 

Luther H. McMillen, 1421 G Street NW., Success Shorthand School, Temple Busi¬ 
ness School. 

*Frank L. Ash, 1330 Twenty-eighth Street NW. 

*Eugene T. Lyddane, 1422 Wisconsin Avenue. 

*Lawrence A. McCormick, 327 Pennsylvania Avenue SE. 

*Henry S. Byrd & Martin J. Barry, 521 G Street NW. 

*Wm. Hannan, 1519 Seventeeth Street NW. 

With respect to the last five locations marked (*), wholesale places, give nearest dis¬ 
tance as above to nearest church, school, or college. 

Yours, very truly, 


Mr. M. C. Hazen, 

District Surveyor , Washington , D. C. 


Chairman Investigation Committee . 


(For reply to this letter see p. 391.) 

(At 2 p. m. the committee took a recess until 4 o’clock p. m.) 


AFTER RECESS. 


The committee reassembled, pursuant to the taking of the recess, 
at 4 o’clock p. m. 

Present: Senators Sheppard (chairman), Thompson, and Jones. 

The Chairman. I will insert in the record at this point a statement 
from the excise hoard replying to certain charges that have been 
made in connection with the administration of their duties. 

(The statement referred to is here printed in full, as follows:) 

Statement by the Excise Board for the District of Columbia. 

February 3, 1915. 

In obedience to your summons, the members of the excise board report for such 
examination as you may see fit to make, under resolution of the United States Senate, 
to investigate the conduct of the excise board, and the manner in which the excise 
law has been administered, etc. . , , . . „ . , , , ., 

The three members composing the excise board originally were appointed by the 
President and confirmed by the United States Senate, and took oath of office on or 
about September 4, 1913, in pursuance of the law known as the excise law, approved 



24 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


March 4, 1913. On April 15, 1914, one of these members resigned and another ap¬ 
pointee took office on April 16, 1914, and the board as then composed has continued 
2 n existence. . 

The board adopted and promulgated in the first weeks of its existence rules ana 
regulations, from time to time slightly amended, as a basis for its procedure. The 
board was to administer the excise law, as is customary with all laws, in the interests 
©I the people. The board has never been generally informed, nor has it understood, 
tha t the excise law was enacted and given to it to execute in the interest of any par¬ 
ticular class of citizens or industry, but that it was a common law to be put into force 
and administered carefully and dutifully for the best interests of all the people it 
affected. . 

It considers that its status is the same in a certain respect as that of the excise board 
acting under authority of the excise law which governed the District of Columbia 
Immediately preceding the time when the present law took effect. In an opinion 
delivered in 1899, in the case of Fitzgerald v. O’Leary, equity No. 20,698, Mr. Justice 
Barnard said: “By the statute in this District Congress has created a quasi-judicial 
tribunal, and given it exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of regulating the sale of 
intoxicating liquors. It is charged with the duty of determining who shall be allowed 
to 6eil, and the place within certain limits where the business shall be carried on. 
Unless it shall exceed its jurisdiction, or act contrary to the proper limitations of the 
statute, all citizens are bound to accept its decisions in this matter of police regula¬ 
tion as final.” The present excise board believes that these words of the learned 
justice apply with equal force to its standing under the present law. 

The board has endeavored to the best of its ability and intelligence to follow out 
that intention, and its members do not believe that it has failed in any particular of a 
faithful and fearless performance of its duty, and cheerfully submits itself to the 
examination of this committee in order that there may be removed from its escutcheon 
the stain of charges, based upon what it believes to be misinformation, that might 
forever unjustly mar the future lives of each and every one of its members. 

It has been charged that paragraph 2 of the excise law has been violated in that 
licenses have been granted by the excise board within the prohibited distance from 
public schoolhouses, or now established colleges or universities or houses of religious 
worship. 

The excise board studied carefully this provision of the law, with a due regard for the 
sacredness of its responsibility, and the human and property rights to be affected. 
It sought the guidance of such rules and regulations as bore upon the subject at hand 
The full membership of the board visited every situation that was presented by an 
application for license and personally measured the distance, wherever doubt existed, 
to assure itself of the degree of proximity of the proposed barroom to any prohibited 
establishment, and it believes that in no case has the law on this subject been violated. 

In the measurements which the board made with a view to enforcing the section 
referred to, it was governed to a great extent, if not fully, by the laws and regulations 
relating to street traffic issued by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia and 
amended to July 14, 1914. Section 40 (b) reads: “Pedestrians should avoid inter¬ 
ference with traffic, and to this end should not step from the sidewalk without first 
looking to see what is approaching; should cross the street at a right angle, preferably 
at a regular crossing at the end of a block, and where a traffic policeman is stationed, 
wait for his signal.” And section 40 (c) reads: “Pedestrians on sidewalks should 
keep to the right and when stopping should not obstruct a crossing nor an entrance to 
a building.” For violation of these provisions it is said in section 41 that “any person 
violating any provision of this section of this article, shall, on conviction thereof, be 
punished by a fine of not less than one dollar nor more than forty dollars for each 
offense.” 

Hence the board thought it was eminently proper to follow out in its measurements 
tihe “shortest course of travel ” which the law marks out. The board in order to be just 
followed that rule of right angle measurement, and believes that in every case where 
license was granted the distance from a public schoolhouse, college or university, or 
house of religious worship, exceeds the legal requirement of 400 feet. 

In the case of Fitzgerald v. O’Leary, cited above, Mr. Justice Barnard said: “Where 
there are two or more ways which may be fairly adopted for measuring the shortest 
course of travel between the nearest entrance to the saloon, and the nearest entrance 
to the schoolhouse, one of which will show the distance to be four hundred feet or more 
and the excise board has decided that way to be the proper one to adopt, its judgment 
in that respect will be conclusive and final.” 

The board thinks that the rule of right angle measurements, after the provision of the 
traffic law, is certainly one that “maybe fairly adopted” for the purpose set forth in 
the present excise law. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA." 


25 


The board would again invite attention to the words of Justice Barnard: “In a case 
where there could be no question or room for construction as to the shortest course of 
travel, or the way the line should be run, and the distance must necessarily be less 
than four hundred feet, and notwithstanding which the board had granted a license, 
and thereby clearly violated the statute, I think there would be a remedy in the 
courts. The excise law is comparatively new. Some of its provisions, and these 
important ones, did not take effect until November 1 , 1914, a short three months ago. 
. 6 board is at a loss to understand why those who are dissatisfied with the manner 
in which the law has been administered, and who hold that licenses have been 
iliegaliy granted in some instances, have not taken those cases to court, where the 
validity of their contention may be affirmed or denied. 

It will be noted that the law provides for the exclusion of barrooms the entrances 
to which are not located more than 400 feet “by the shortest course of travel” from 
the entrance to a “public schoolhouse.” Now, what is a “schoolhouse ”? The quo¬ 
tation is from Webster’s Dictionary. It is a “house appropriated for the use of schools 
or for instruction.” According to the same authority, “appropriated” means “set 
apart for or assigned to a particular use, to the exclusion of all other uses.” A school- 
house, then, is a house set apart for or assigned for the use of instruction, to the exclu¬ 
sion of all other uses. 

In like fashion the excise law forbids locating barrooms within 400 feet of “houses 
of religious worship.” The board wishes to invite attention to the fact that in the 
proposed substitute for Senate amendment No. 132 to the District of Columbia appro¬ 
priation bill providing an excise law (p. 4), the phrase “place of religious worship” 
was stricken out and. the words “now established house of religious worship” substi¬ 
tuted. Surely, the intention of Congress was clear on this particular point. The 
board is convinced that such places of religious worship as are located in buildings a 
great part of which are occupied for purposes other than religious, were not compre¬ 
hended by the phrase, “house of religious worship.” 

. Paragraph 2 of the excise law required the board to “make such rules and regula¬ 
tions for carrying into effect this section as it shall deem requisite and proper.” The 
board has attempted, under that authority, to give consideration to what it thinks 
was the intention of Congress when it enacted the present law. Although Congress 
did not specify that paragraph 2, subsection 7, should not apply to hotels and clubs, 
the excise board in its honest judgment did not believe that it was intended to exclude 
such clubs as the Metropolitan, Army and Navy, University, Commercial, nor hotels 
such as the Gordon, Cairo, Bellevue, and others. 

Hence in forming its rules and regulations the board provided (sec. 6), which reads: 

_ “Sec. 6. Beginning November 6, 1914, no barroom license shall be granted on any 
side, of any street where less than fifty per centum of the foot frontage between inter¬ 
secting streets, excluding the parts of buildings wherein barroom licenses are held, is 
used for business purposes: Provided , That this restriction shall not apply to hotels 
and clubs.” 

If, in extending protection from the restriction of 50 per cent business frontage, in 
places where these establishments are located, the board is subject to criticism, the 
action was certainly without solicitation from anyone, directly or indirectly, and only 
in the belief by the board that it was for the public weal. The same may be said, in 
passing, as to any other rule and regulation. 

It has been charged against the board that it has violated the spirit of the provision 
of the law (par. 2) which provides that “No saloon, barroom, or other place where 
intoxicating liquor is sold at retail shall be licensed, allowed, or maintained within 
three hundred feet of any alleyway occupied for residences or of places commonly 
called slums; except, upon the unanimous vote of all three members of said excise 
board.” In its investigations the board visited each of the situations where alleyways 
were in proximity to proposed locations, and where it was possible in the consideration 
of the law and the rights of all persons concerned it exercised unanimously the duty 
placed upon it by the law to the best of its ability, and believes that while alley con¬ 
ditions may not be as ideal as is desired by some of our citizens, they have been mate¬ 
rially improved and are improving. 

As to the granting of licenses within the extended fire-line limits, the board believes 
that in granting licenses to the two places affected, with the provision that such 
licenses should be subject to the action of the court in the cases pending in relation 
thereto, it performed its sworn duty in the premises. Of course, the board did not 
have to grant these licenses. It need not have granted any license. But it wishes to 
be just. The two citizens to whom these licenses were granted were entitled, as are 
all others, to the best official service the board can give them under the law. 

The board has been criticised for not adhering more strictly to the reports of the 
police department. Paragraph 2 of the excise law provides that the board “may 
require a report by the chief of police, and the action of said board shall be final and 


26 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


conclusive.” In this the board has followed the law faithfully, has received a report 
in each case of application for transfer, renewal, or new license, and endeavored to give 
proper weight to the police report in consideration of all the circumstances, as pro-- 
duced at the hearing in each case. 

As to the necessity for the appearance of attorneys, representing applicants for 
license, the board, so far as it is concerned, does not feel the need to be apparent, but 
perceives that the presence at each hearing of the prosecuting attorney, employed 
by the Anti-Saloon League, might influence an applicant to secure an attorney’s 
services. 

In this connection, the board is pleased to submit the following list, which indicates 
just what attorneys and representatives appeared before it during the hearings on appli¬ 
cations for barroom licenses for the present license year, the number of cases entrusted 
to each by applicants, and their disposition in the decisions of the board. 

There were 409 such hearings conducted before the board just prior to November 1, 
1914, and three since that date. Mr. Albert E. Shoemaker, attorney for the Anti- 
Saloon League, appeared in every case as the opponent of the applicants. The latter 
were represented before the board in these cases as follows: 


Name. 

Cases. 

Granted. 

Refused. 

Name. 

Cases. 

Granted. 

Refused 

No attorney. 

170 

128 

42 

M. J. Keane. 

27 

22 

5 

C. G. Allen. 

1 

1 


W. J. Lambert. 

1 


1 

J. A. Burkart. 

7 

5 

2 

F. P. Madigan. 

1 

1 


D. W. Baker. 

1 


1 

Stephen McDonough... 

3 

1 

2 

Baker-Leahy. 

2 

2 


M. F. Mangan. 

2 

2 


Howard Boyd. 

2 

1 

1 

R. L. Montague. 

2 

2 


F. W. Brandenburg.... 

1 


1 

M. J. McNamara. 

1 

1 


A. H. Bell. 

45 

30 

15 

Alvin Newmeyer. 

1 


i 

Edmund Brady. 

1 

1 


D. W. O’Donoghue.... 

1 

1 


Brown & Baumann.... 

2 

2 


T. W. O’Brien. 

1 


i 

Chas. Baumann. 

1 

1 


J. F. O’Shea... 

1 


i 

F. C. Bryan. 

1 


1 

R. R. Perry, jr. 

1 

1 


Bell-Sheehy. 

2 

2 


S. C. Peelle. 

1 

1 


W. F. Columbus. 

6 

3 

3 

J. Potbury. 

1 

1 


J. F. Costello. 

4 

3 

1 

P e vser-Sh eeh y. 

1 


i 

M. J. Colbert. 

3 

1 

2 

M. P. Sullivan. 

44 

34 

10 

Jos. Cox. 

2 

2 


C. M. Stadden. 

1 


l 

Collins & Ball. 

1 

1 


M. W. Sullivan. 

3 

3 

Columbus-Trimble. 

1 


1 

J. C. Sheehy. 

5 

5 


Columbus-Shea. 

1 

1 


Sullivan-Frank... 

1 

1 


H. E. Davis. 

2 

2 


Matthew Trimble.... 

8 

4 

4 

R. F. Downing. 

2 

2 


Tobriner-Graham_ 

2 

2 


Downing-Montague_ 

1 

1 


Jas. Toomey. 

1 

1 


L. C. Dismer. 

1 

1 


L. Tobriner. 

5 

4 

1 

C. W. Darr. 

1 


1 

Winship Wheatley .. 

2 

2 

Neil England. 

1 


1 

Alex. Wolf. 

2 

2 


J. M. Frank. 

3 

1 

2 

W. T. Whelan . 

16 

10 

6 

Geo. Ha veil. 

2 


2 

Wheatley & Ball 

1 

1 

Leo Harlow. 

1 

1 


W. H. Whte. 

2 

2 


Eugene Jones. 

1 

1 






Abe King. 

1 


1 

Total 

409 

297 

112 

Keane-W. D. Sullivan. 

1 


1 



In the three hearings conducted since November 1,1914, the applicants were repre¬ 
sented as follows: 


Name. 

Cases. 

Granted. 

Refused. 

M. P. Sullivan. 

1 

1 


M. J. Keane. 

1 

1 


R. L. Montague. 

1 

1 


Total. 

412 

300 

119 



11^ 


As to the matter of the amount of fees paid by applicants to attorneys, the board 
has not felt that the law required it to go into the private affairs of attorneys in good 
standing before the bar of the District of Columbia and ask the question, either of 
the attorney or his client, as to how much money he was receiving or was to receive 
in fees in any particular case. The board does not believe that on second thought 
it will be urged that it was its duty to do so, or to regard it as a matter within its juris¬ 
diction. 






































































































































EXCISE BOARD OP THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


27 


In executing the law with reference to the number of barrooms in blocks between 
intersecting streets, the board was governed by the limit prescribed by law, and 
where removals were necessary, section 9 of the rules and regulations was applied, 
and in doing so all applicants being equally worthy, the board exercised its best 
judgment and inflicted as little embarrassment as its ability to determine would 
secure. This particular provision of the law was very difficult to administer. 

In reference to the licensing of barrooms on streets at right angles to streets previously 
located upon, and in the same building, as in the case at Fourteenth and E Streets 
NW., the board believes that in acting favorably public interest has been properly 
served, especially when a barroom known upon one street (E Street) had been closed 
under the law, and later a new application made for an absolutely different street 
(Fourteenth Street). The board does not believe that when it favorably and honestly 
acted upon a new application for a barroom license to be located around the comer on 
another street, that it perverted the law, even though the new license be located in 
the same building as the old. 

It has been alleged that in a certain case the applicant paid for the destruction of a 
petition of protest. No evidence was produced before the board at the hearing in 
the case referred to proving such a purchase. It did develop that the premises 
applied for were then occupied by a tenant who wished to remain in his place of 
business, and who therefore circulated a petition of protest. The licensee paid him 
$100 to allow him to post notice of proposed transfer, and agreed to pay $100 more 
when he obtained possession of the premises. The testimony is clear, and may be 
read by all. 

With reference to alleged violations of the excise law by licensees, the board wishes 
it to be borne in mind that the initial part of this phase of the law is in the hands of 
the police; until a conviction is had in the police court, the excise board lias no case 
against the licensee. But if convicted once the board “may in its discretion revoke 
the license, and upon the second conviction of such violation * * * the excise 
board shall immediately revoke the license.” No conviction has been had in the 
police court under the present excise law against any barroom licensee to whom 
license was granted by the excise board. 

During the months of September and October the board granted public hearings 
on every application for either a wholesale or barroom license. In all there were more 
than 500 such hearings. The Anti-Saloon League’s attorney was present, throughout 
the proceedings, and in every single case vigorously objected to license being granted. 
The board, after long deliberation, and with full regard for the demands of the law, 
rendered its decisions which, in all cases, were unanimous. 

There have been 300 barroom licenses granted. It will be noted that the revenue 
received from approximately 450 licenses at $1,000 last year is equalled by that 
received from 300 licenses, at $1,500 this year. This feature of the situation the board 
kept in mind with the belief that Congress did not believe that the revenue should 
be materially reduced. 

In conclusion, the board wishes to emphasize the fact that it is not the servant of 
any man, clique, organization, or business, but that it believes that it has always 
acted in the interest of the people of the District of Columbia, under the law as it 
exists, and has to that end performed its functions fearlessly and faithfully. While 
this is a fact, the board would be derelict were it not to state here and now that it 
challenges any person or organization to charge the board with knowingly or wilfully, 
or in any manner, directly or indirectly, favoring the individual or corporation at 
the expense of the community, either for or without compensation. 

It. G. Smith, Chairman , 
Henry S. Baker, 

Cotter T. Bride, 

Excise Board for the District oj Columbia. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ANDREW WILSON. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your full name? 

Mr. Wilson. Andrew Wilson. 

The Chairman. What is your local address ? 

Mr. Wilson. Office, 802 to 806 Woodward Building. Residence, 
1850 Mintwood Place NW., Washington, D. C. 

The Chairman. How long have you been a resident of the District 
of Columbia ? 


28 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Wilson. I came to the District of Columbia on the 9th day of 
June, 1888. With the exception of two years in graduate work at 
Yale University, I have been a resident of the District of Columbia 
since that date. 

The Chairman. What is your profession ? 

Mr. Wilson. Lawyer. 

The Chairman. What is your position in connection with the Anti- 
Saloon League ? 

Mr. Wilson. I am president of the Anti-Saloon League of the Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia. 

The Chairman. By virtue of that position, you have been in touch 
with the workings of the excise board of the District of Columbia, 
have you not ? 

Mr. Wilson. To a considerable extent. 

The Chairman. Please state the object of the Anti-Saloon League. 

Mr. Wilson. It is to drive the saloon out of existence. The motto 
of the Anti-Saloon League is “The saloon must go.” We have been 
using all means that we deemed honorable and expedient to accom¬ 
plish that purpose. 

The Chairman. Your organization has felt it incumbent on itself, 
in the interest of the public, to see that the laws regulating the saloons 
in the District of Columbia were observed and obeyed in so far as 
you could bring it about, has it not ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; we have put forth considerable endeavor to 
get or to enforce obedience to the laws. 

The Chairman. You have also felt it your duty to see that the 
number of saloons was reduced as far as possible ? 

Mr. Wilson. We have attempted to get legislation looking to that 
end, and we have also had an attorney present at the hearings— 
practically all the hearings—before the excise board for a number of 
years. That attorney is Mr. Albert E. Shoemaker. 

The Chairman. When did the present excise board take up its 
work? 

Mr. Wilson. About the first of September, 1913. I can not give 
you the exact date. 

The Chairman. You were active in securing the adoption of the 
law under which that board was appointed, were you not ? 

Mr. Wilson. I was. 

The Chairman. That law is known as the Jones-Works excise 
law, is it not ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you any knowledge as to whether the board, 
in adopting its rules and regulations, followed the Jones excise law 
or made changes in it ? 

Mr. Wilson. The board in adopting its rules and regulations 
followed, in some degree, the excise law, but in some degree it did 
not, according to the views of the attorney for the Anti-Saloon 
League, in which I concur. 

The Chairman. Have you a statement showing the instances in 
which the excise board changed or modified the law under the guise 
of rules and regulations ? 

Mr. Wilson. I have not. The rules and regulations are appended 
to a pamphlet which 1 hold in my hand, entitled “Excise liquor 
law of the District of Columbia and rules and regulations adopted 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


29 


excise board, 1913, with amendments,” bearing the imprint, 
Washington, 1914 ” F 

(The pamphlet referred to is here printed in full, as follows:) 

Excise Liquor Law of the District of Columbia and Rules and Regulations 
Adopted by the Excise Board, 1913, with Amendments. 


EXCISE. 


Sec. 9. Paragraph 1 . That no person, company, copartnership, association, club, 
or corporation shall manufacture, sell, offer for sale, keep for sale, traffic in, barter, 
exchange for goods, give away, or otherwise furnish, in the District of Columbia, any 
intoxicating liquors, except as hereinafter provided. Wherever the term “intox¬ 
icating liquors” is used in this section it shall be deemed to include whisky, brandy, 
gin, wine, cordials, rum, ale, porter, beer, hard or fermented cider, and all other fer¬ 
mented, distilled, spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors, and every mixture of liquors 
which shall contain more than two per centum, by weight, of alcohol, and any mix¬ 
ture of liquor which shall contain less than two per centum of alcohol, if the same shall 
be intoxicating. 

Par. 2. That there shall be, and is hereby, constituted an excise board for the Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia, which shall be composed of three members, to be appointed by 
the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
and who shall serve for a term of three years, and until their successors are appointed 
and qualified, except that the members first appointed shall serve for one, two, and 
three years, respectively, as may be designated by the President, or until their suc¬ 
cessors are appointed and qualified. The salary of said commissioners shall be at 
the rate of $2,400 per annum. 

Hereafter no license shall be issued to a hotel having less than fifty bedrooms for 
guests, nor to any hotel the character of which, or the character of the proprietor or 
manager of which, is shown to be objectionable to said board. 

Not more than three saloons or barrooms other than in hotels or clubs shall be per¬ 
mitted on one side of a street between intersecting streets, nor more than four on both 
sides of a street between intersecting streets. 

No saloon, barroom, or other place where intoxicating liquor is sold at retail shall 
be licensed, allowed, or maintained within three hundred feet of any alleyway occu¬ 
pied for residences or of places commonly called slums, except upon the unanimous 
vote of all three members of said excise board. 

No saloon, barroom, or other place where intoxicating liquor is sold at retail or 
wholesale, other than hotels and clubs, shall be licensed, allowed, or maintained 
within four hundred feet of any public schoolhouse, or a now located or established 
college or university, or within four hundred feet of any now established house of 
religious worship, measured between the nearest entrances to each by the shortest 
course of travel between such places of business and such public schoolhouse, college 
or university, or established house of religious worship. 

No license shall be granted to sell intoxicating liquors in the waiting room of any 
station or depot of any steam or electric railroad or other carrier for the transportation 
of passengers within the District of Columbia. 

Hereafter no license shall be granted for the establishment or maintenance of a 
barroom or other place for the sale of intoxicating liquors, otherwise than in sealed 
packages and not to be drunk on the premises, in any residence portion of the Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia; and it shall be the duty of the excise board to determine in the 
case of each application for license whether the location where the barroom is to be 
located is or is not within the business portion of the District, and if not the license 
shall be denied; and the excise board is hereby authorized and required to determine 
in each case what is so far devoted to business as to constitute it a business street or 
section: Provided , That no license shall be granted for any saloon or barroom on any 
side of any square, block, or tract of land where less chan fifty per centum of the foot 
frontage, not including saloons or hotels and clubs having barroom licenses under 
this section, is used for business purposes; nor shall intoxicating liquors be sold at 
wholesale outside of the business districts as above provided. 

No saloon, barroom, or wholesale liquor business shall be licensed, maintained, or 
allowed in the territory west of the following lines: The westerly line of the fire limits 
as now established from its southerly limits to where the same intersects with the 
mile limit of the Soldiers’ Home; thence westerly and northerly along the said mile 
limit until the same intersects with Kansas Avenue; thence along Kansas Avenue 
to its intersection with the northern boundary of the District of Columbia. 


30 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Said board shall consider and act upon all applications for license to sell intoxi¬ 
cating liquors, and may require a report thereon by the chief of police, and the action 
of said board shall be final and conclusive. In the issuing of licenses for barrooms 
it shall be the duty of the excise board to adopt such a policy as will reduce the num¬ 
ber of barrooms, including those in hotels and clubs, to not exceeding three hundred 
by November first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, but no licensee who shall con¬ 
duct his business within the law shall be deprived of his license or required to change 
his location before November first, nineteen hundred and fourteen. On the granting 
by said board of a license to sell intoxicating liquors, the assessor shall issue a license 
to the applicant. Said board shall make such rules and regulations for carrying into 
effect this section as it may deem requisite and proper. It shall make an annual 
report to Congress setting forth the number of applications for license, whether favor¬ 
ably or unfavorably acted upon, the number of persons convicted for violation of 
this statute, and the number and amount of fines collected and uncollected; and 
said excise board is hereby authorized and empowered to summon any person before 
it to give testimony, under oath or affirmation, as to any matter affecting the operation 
of the laws regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors in the District of Columbia; 
and any member of the board shall have the power to administer oaths or affirma¬ 
tions for all purposes of administering said laws. Such summons may be served by 
any member of the Metropolitan police force, and the refusal or neglect of a witness 
to appear before the said board or to testify when required, may be punished in the 
same manner as a refusal to appear before the Commissioners of the District of Colum¬ 
bia, as provided for in the acts of February twentieth, eighteen hundred and ninety- 
six, entitled “An act to amend an act entitled ‘An act to punish false swearing 
before trial boards of the Metropolitan police force and fire department of the District 
of Columbia, and for other purposes,’ approved May eleventh, eighteen hundred 
and ninety-two,” and July first, nineteen hundred and two, entitled “An act making 
appropriations to provide for the expenses of the government of the District of Colum¬ 
bia for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and three, and for 
other purposes.” Witnesses so summoned shall be entitled to a fee of $1.25 for each 
day’s attendance before the said board, payable out of the contingent fund of the 
Commissioners of the District of Columbia; and any witness knowingly making a 
false statement to the said board on any material matter shall be guilty of perjury and 
punishable accordingly. 

Par. 3. That the said board shall appoint a clerk at a salary of $1,500 per annum 
and an inspector with police powers at a salary of $1,500 per annum. Said inspector 
shall make inspections as may be required by this section, under the orders of the 
board, and make full report of such inspections to the board. He shall wear a badge 
indicating that he is such inspector of the excise board. The board shall keep a full 
record of all applications for license, of all recommendations for and remonstrances 
against the granting of licenses, and the actions taken thereon. 

Par. 4. That every person applying for a license to sell intoxicating liquors in said 
District shall file with the said board a petition for such license, and such petition 
shall be considered and acted upon by the board in the order in which such petition 
is filed and numbered. Said petition shall contain— 

First. A statement giving the name and residence of the applicant and the time 
he has resided in the District of Columbia. 

Second. A statement describing the particular place for which a license is desired, 
designating the same by street and number, if practicable, and if not, by such other 
apt description as will definitely locate it, and how long said applicant has been 
engaged in business at said place. 

Third. The full name and residence of the owner of the premises upon which the 
business is to be carried on. 

Fourth. A statement that the applicant is a citizen of the United States and a 
bona fide resident of the District of Columbia, and not less than twenty-one years of 
age, and whether such applicant has, since March third, eighteen hundred and ninety- 
three, been adjudged guilty of violating the laws governing the sale of intoxicating 
liquors or for the prevention of gambling in the District of Columbia. 

Fifth. A statement that he intends to, and if licensed will, carry on such business 
for himself and not as the agent of any other person, company, copartnership, or 
corporation. 

Sixth. A statement that he intends to superintend in person the management of 
the business for which he asks a license, and that if licensed he will so superintend 
the management of the business so licensed. 

Said petition must be sworn to by the petitioner before a notary public or other 
person duly authorized to administer oaths and affirmations. If any false material 
statement is knowingly made in any part of said petition, the petitioner making said 
affidavit shall be deemed guilty of perjury, and on conviction thereof shall be subject 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


31 


to the penalty now provided by law for that offense; and in case a license has been 
issued to said petitioner the same shall be immediately revoked by said board. Notice 
of the filing of said petition shall be given by the applicant in such manner as may be 
prescribed by general rules and regulations adopted by the excise board; and if 
protests against the granting of such license are filed no final action shall be taken 
by the excise board until the protestants shall have had an opportunity to be heard 
under rules and regulations prescribed by said board. 

Par. 5. That the licenses authorized and provided for by this section shall be of 
two classes, wholesale liquor licenses and barroom licenses. The fee for a wholesale 
liquor license until November first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, shall be $500 per 
annum, and for a barroom license $1,000 per annum until November first, nineteen 
hundred and fourteen; and thereafter the fee for a wholesale liquor license shall be 
$800 and the fee for a barroom license shall be $1,500 per annum. Every applicant for 
a liquor license shall deposit the amount of the license fee with the collector of taxes 
of the District of Columbia at the time of filing the application with the excise board. 
If, upon consideration of the application for license by the board as provided for in 
<his section, the board shall decide to grant the license prayed for it shall notify the 
assessor, and the applicant shall thereupon receive his license; and only on the 
granting by said board of a license to any applicant to sell intoxicating liquor shall the 
assessor issue a license to such applicant. Whenever a license shall be refused by 
said board, the collector of taxes shall forthwith refund the deposit aforesaid. A bar¬ 
room license shall be required for every hotel, tavern, barroom, club, or other place in 
which intoxicating liquors are sold or dispensed at retail. A wholesale liquor license 
shall authorize the licensee to sell intoxicating liquors in sealed packages only and in 
quantities not less than one quart in the aggregate, except in sealed original or bonded 
package in quantity not less than approximately a pint, and not to be drunk on the 
premises where sold; and no wholesale license shall be granted until it is satisfactorily 
shown that the place where it is intended to carry on such business is properly arranged 
for selling such liquors as merchandise. Every place where intoxicating liquors are 
sold to be drunk on the premises or in quantities less than one quart, except in sealed 
original or bonded packages as aforesaid whether drunk on the premises or not, shall 
be regarded as a bqrroom; and the possession of intoxicating liquors, with the means 
and appliances for carrying on the business of dispensing the same to be drunk where 
sold, shall be prima facie evidence of a barroom within the meaning of this section, 
and the license therefor shall be known as a barroom license. All makers, brewers, 
and distillers of intoxicating liquors in the District of Columbia, shall be required to 
take out the wholesale license provided for in this section: Provided, That when such 
business is carried on at more than one place a license shall be required for each place. 
Before the excise board may grant a license to a club it must be satisfactorily shown 
that such club is duly incorporated; that its membership is bona fide, all being on an 
equal status with equal privileges and responsibilities; that its purposes are legitimate; 
and that the sale of liquor intended is no more than an incident, and is not a prime 
source of revenue. A license to a club may be issued in the name of its president, 
and in case of violation of the provisions of this section in such club, lie and the secre¬ 
tary, the treasurer, and the manager of the club shall be proceeded against collectively 
or severally in their individual capacities and, if convicted, be subject to the penalties 
prescribed in paragraph fourteen of this section, and the license of said club shall be 
immediately revoked by the excise board: Provided further, That after November 
first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, there shall not be granted licenses to more than 
twenty-five clubs, including those now licensed. 

Par. 6. That under the license issued in accordance with this section no intoxi¬ 
cating liquors shall be sold, given away, or in any way disposed of to any minor, 
intoxicated person, or habitual drunkard, and ignorance of the age of any such minor 
shall not be a defense to any action instituted under this section; and no licensee 
under this section shall sell, give away, or dispense any intoxicating liquors to any 
person between the hours of one o’clock a. m. and seven o’clock a. m., nor on Sun¬ 
days or Inauguration Day; and between said hours, and on Sundays, and Inaugu¬ 
ration Day every barroom and other place where intoxicating liquors are sold shall 
be kept closed; that no minor under the age of eighteen years shall be allowed to 
enter or be permitted to remain in any place where intoxicating liquors are sold, 
other than a hotel, restaurant, or club; that the interior of every barroom shall at 
all times when selling is prohibited be exposed to full view from the street, without 
obstruction by screens, blinds, curtains, stained glass, bottles, boxes, signs, or other 
material, except in the case of clubs licensed under this section and hotels having 
only an interior barroom, which shall be exposed to full view from the corridors or 
passageways leading to the entrance or entrances to such barroom. 

Par. 7. That any minor who falsely represents his age for the purpose of procuring 
intoxicating liquors shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined for each 


32 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


offense not more than $50, and in default in the payment of such fine shall be impris¬ 
oned in the reformatory or workhouse of said District not exceeding thirty days. 

Par. 8. That no license under this section shall be issued for a longer period than 
one year, and the year shall begin on the first day of November and end on the last 
day of October following; and no license shall be transferred by the licensee to any 
other person or to any other place, except with the written consent of the excise 
board upon a regular application therefor in writing and after notice and hearing 
as in this section provided upon an original application for a license; and the fee to 
be paid by the party applying for such transfer shall be $2, which shall be paid to 
the collector of taxes of the District before such transfer is made: Provided , That the 
excise board shall not allow the transfer of the license of any person against whom 
there are pending in the courts or before the excise board charges of keeping a dis¬ 
orderly house or violating the excise laws or the laws against gambling in the District 
of Columbia. 

Par. 9. That every person receiving a license to sell liquor under this section 
shall frame the same under glass and place it in a conspicuous place in his place of 
business, so that anyone entering such place may easily read such license. 

Par. 10. That all applicants for license and persons holding licenses under this 
section shall allow any member of the'excise board or the duly authorized inspector 
of the said board full opportunity and every facility to examine, at any time during 
business hours, the premises where intoxicating liquor is manufactured, sold, or for 
which a license is asked or has been granted; and the same opportunity and facility 
shall be afforded, by the licensee or some person acting in his stead, any member of 
the Metropolitan police force, who has reasonable belief that the law is being vio¬ 
lated, to enter and examine at all times such licensed places, and no person or persons 
shall obstruct, hinder, or in any manner molest such inspector or officer, provided 
such inspector or officer exhibits a badge showing he is such inspector or officer. 

Par. 11. That regularly licensed druggists or pharmacists shall not be required to 
obtain license under the provisions of this section, but they shall not sell intoxicating 
liquors, nor compound, nor mix any composition thereof, nor sell any malt extract, 
or other proprietary medicines containing more than two per centum of alcohol, 
except such compounds, compositions, malt extracts, or proprietary medicines be 
so medicated as to be medicinal preparations or compounds unfit for use as beverages, 
except upon a written and bona fide prescription of a duly licensed and regularly 
practicing physician in the District of Columbia, whose name shall be signed thereto. 
Such prescription shall contain a statement that the disease of the patient required 
such a prescription, shall be numbered in the order of receiving, and shall be canceled 
by writing on it the word “canceled” and the date on which it was presented and 
filled, and kept on file in consecutive order, subject to public inspection at all times 
during business hours. No such prescription shall be filled more than once. Every 
druggist or pharmacist selling intoxicating liquors as herein provided shall keep a 
book provided for the purpose, and shall enter therein at the time of every sale a 
true record of the date of the sale, the name of the purchaser, who shall sign his name 
in Baid book as a part of the entry, his residence (giving the street and house number, 
if there be such), the kind and quantity and price of such liquor, the purpose for 
which it was sold, and the name of the physician giving the prescription therefor. 
Such book shall be open to public inspection during business hours, and shall be in 
form substantially as follows: 


Date. 

Name of 
purchaser. 

Residence. 

Kind and 
quantity. 

Purpose of 
use. 

Price. 

Name of 
physician. 

Signature 

of 

purchaser. 










Said book shall be produced before the excise board or the courts when required: 
Provided , That pure grain alcohol may be sold without a physician’s prescription 
for mechanical, medicinal, and scientific purposes by registered druggists or phar¬ 
macists, who shall keep a book for the purpose of registering such sales in a similar 
manner or form as required for the sale of intoxicating liquors as provided in this 















EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


33 


section: Provided further, That any person who shall make any false statement as to 
the purpose or use of alcohol purchased under the provisions of this section shall be 
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be fined for each offense not more than fifty 
dollars, and in default of the payment of such fine shall be imprisoned in the work- 
house of said District not exceeding thirty days 

Any druggist or pharmacist who shall sell or dispense any intoxicating liquors, ex¬ 
cept m such manner as provided in this section, or who shall fail or refuse to keep 
the record herein required, or who shall refill any prescriptions, or who shall violate 
any other provisions of this paragraph, shall be guilty of illegal selling, and upon 
conviction thereof shall be subject to the penalties prescribed in paragraph twelve of 
this section. Upon a second conviction for said offense, in addition to the penalties 
prescribed in said paragraph twelve, it shall be a part of the judgment of conviction 
that the license of such druggist or pharmacist to practice pharmacy shall be revoked, 
and the court before which such person is tried and convicted shall cause a certified 
copy of such judgment of conviction to be certified to the board having authority to 
issue licenses to practice pharmacy in the District of Columbia. 

Any physician who shall prescribe any intoxicating liquor except for treatment of 
disease which, after his own personal diagnosis, he shall deem to require such treat¬ 
ment, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall 
be fined not less than $50 nor more than $200, and in default of payment of said fine 
shall be imprisoned in the District jail or workhouse for not less than thirty nor more 
than ninety days, and upon a second conviction for said offense, in addition to the 
penalty above provided, it shall be a part of the judgment of conviction that the 
license of such physician to practice medicine be revoked, and the court before which 
such physician is tried and convicted shall cause a certified copy of such judgment 
of conviction to be certified to the board having authority to issue licenses to practice 
medicine in the District of Columbia. 

Par. 12. That any person, company, copartnership, corporation, club, or associa¬ 
tion manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, keeping for sale, trafficking in, barter¬ 
ing, exchanging for goods, or otherwise furnishing any intoxicating liquors in the 
District of Columbia, without first having obtained a license as herein provided, or 
shall manufacture, sell, offer for sale, keep for sale, traffic in, barter, exchange for 
goods, or give away intoxicating liquors in any part, section, or district of the District 
of Columbia wherein the same is prohibited by law, upon conviction thereof shall be 
fined not less than $250 nor more than $800, and in default in the payment of such 
fine be imprisoned in the District jail or workhouse for not less than two months nor 
more than six months; and upon every subsequent conviction for such offense shall, 
in addition to the penalty named, to wit, a fine of not less than $250 nor more than 
$800, be imprisoned in the workhouse of the District of Columbia not less than three 
months nor more than one year. 

Par. 13. That any person, company, copartnership, corporation, or club having 
obtained a license under this section, who shall violate any of its provisions shall, 
upon conviction of such violation, be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500, 
and the excise board may, in its discretion, revoke the license; and upon a second 
conviction of such violation such licensee shall be fined not less than $200 nor more 
than $500, and in addition to such fine the excise board shall immediately revoke the 
license. That upon the conviction of any licensee of keeping a disorderly or dis¬ 
reputable place, it shall be the duty of the excise board to immediately revoke the 
license of such convicted licensee, and after such revocation no license shall again 
be granted to him for said place or elsewhere, nor shall a license be granted to anyone 
else for said place for a period of three years from the date of said revocation of license. 

Par. 14. That no licensee under this section shall allow any female or any minor 
or any person convicted of crime, to sell, give, furnish, or distribute any intoxicating 
liquors, or any admixture thereof, to any person or persons, or except in the cases 
of hotels, restaurants, and clubs shall permit the playing of pool or billiards, or any 
other games whatever, in the room where such liquors are sold or drunk, or in any 
adjoining or intercommunicating room; nor shall he, except in the case of hotels, 
restaurants, and clubs, permit the playing of music or theatricals of any kind, or 
provide other amusements in his place of business or in connection therewith. Nor 
shall any barroom licensee establish more than one bar under his license, and the 
sale or dispensing of liquors, except in case of hotels, restaurants, and clubs, shall 
be confined to the room in which said bar is located; nor provide or permit to be used 
more than one entrance to said barroom from the street, which entrance shall be the 
one mentioned in his application for license, unless the excise board shall especially 
permit an extra entrance. Nor shall any barroom licensee sell, give, furnish, or dis¬ 
tribute any intoxicating liquors to any female, nor permit any female to enter or re- 


34 


EXCISE BOABD OF THE DISTEICT OF COLUMBIA. 


main in his barroom: Provided , That bona fide guests of hotels, restaurants, and clubs 
having a license to sell intoxicating liquors may be served with liquors at meals in 
such hotels, restaurants, and clubs during the time liquor may be sold: Provided 
further , That no place shall be deemed a restaurant within the meaning of this para¬ 
graph until the same shall have been declared such by action of the excise board. 

Par. 15. That all applicants who have had a license during the preceding year 
who so desire shall apply for a renewal of such license on or before the first day of 
September of each license year: Provided , That in the event of the death of a person 
having a license under this section during a license year there shall be refunded to 
the personal representative of the deceased such amount of the license fee in pro¬ 
portion to the unexpired part of the license year: Provided further, That the minimum 
portion of said license fee to be retained for any portion of the license year, irrespective 
of its proportion to the entire year, shall be $200 in the case of barroom licenses and 
$100 in the case of wholesale licenses: Provided further, That the personal repre¬ 
sentative of any deceased licensee may within thirty days after the death of such 
licensee transfer said license in accordance with the provisions of this law, touching 
transfers of licenses. 

Par. 16. That no license, either wholesale or barroom, shall be issued to any person 
or for any place located within one thousand feet of the grounds of the marine bar¬ 
racks, the War College, and engineer barracks, or of the navy yard, in the District of 
Columbia. 

Par. 17. That any person assisting in or aiding and abetting the violation of any 
of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction 
thereof, shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $100, or be imprisoned in the 
District jail or workhouse for not more than three months for each and every offense: 
Provided, That no witness shall be excused from testifying in any case brought under 
this section on the ground that his answers may tend to incriminate him in connec¬ 
tion with any violation of this section, and such witness so testifying shall not there¬ 
after be prosecuted for violation of any provision of this section concerning which 
such witness may have testified. 

Par. 18. That prosecutions for violations of the provisions of this section shall be 
on information filed in the police court by the corporation counsel of the District of 
Columbia or any of his assistants duly authorized to act for him, and said corporation 
counsel or his assistants shall file such information upon the presentation to him or 
his assistants of sworn information that the law has been violated; and such corpora¬ 
tion counsel and his assistants shall have power to administer oaths to such informant 
or informants, and such others as present themselves, and anyone making a false oath 
to any material fact shall be deemed guilty of perjury and subject to the same penal¬ 
ties as now provided by law for such offense. 

Par. 19. That if one or more persons who are competent witnesses shall charge, on 
oath or affirmation before the corporation counsel of the District of Columbia, or any 
of his assistants duly authorized to act for him, representing that any person, com- 

{ )any, copartnership, association, club, or corporation has or have violated or is vio- 
ating the provisions of this section by manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, keeping 
for sale, trafficking in, bartering, exchanging for goods, giving away, or otherwise 
furnishing intoxicating liquor without license, and shall request said corporation coun¬ 
sel, or any of his assistants duly authorized to act for him, to issue a warrant, said 
attorney or any of his assistants shall issue such warrant, in which warrant the room, 
house, building, or other place in which the violation is alleged to have occurred or 
is occurring shall be specifically described, and said warrant shall be placed in the 
hands of the captain or acting captain of the police precinct in which the room, 
house, building, or other place above referred to is located, commanding him at once 
to thoroughly search said described room, house, building, or other place and the 
appurtenances thereof, and if any such shall be found to take into his possession and 
safely keep, to be produced as evidence when required, all intoxicating liquors (if 
the same shall be found in quantities and in condition to suggest that it is kept for 
sale), and all the means of dispensing same, also all the paraphernalia or part of the 
paraphernalia of a barroom or other in toxica ting-liquor establishment, and any 
United States internal-revenue tax receipt or certificate for the manufacture or sale 
of intoxicating liquor effective for the period of time covering the alleged offense, 
and forthwith report all the facts to the corporation counsel of the District of Columbia’; 
and such intoxicating liquor or the means for dispensing same, or the paraphernalia of 
a barroom or other intoxicating-liquor establishment, or any United States internal- 
revenue tax receipt or certificate for the sale of intoxicating liquor effective as afore¬ 
said, shall be prima facie evidence of the violation of the provisions of paragraph one 
of this section as charged or presented. If the accused shall be found guilty, the 
intoxicating liquor so seized shall, after the trial and time for writ of error, if no writ 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


35 


of error is taken, be destroyed by the police department; if the accused be found not 
guilty, the whole shall be held as his, its, or their property, or the property of the real 
owner. 

Par. 20. That it shall not be necessary in order to convict any person, company, 
association, club, or corporation, his, its, or their agents, officers, clerks, or servants 
of manufacturing or selling intoxicating liquors without license, or, in any section of 
the District of Columbia where the manufacture and sale is prohibited, to prove the 
actual sale, delivery of, or payment for any intoxicating liquors, but the evidence of 
having or keeping them in hand and offering to sell or barter, exchanging for goods or 
merchandise, shall be sufficient to convict; nor shall it be necessary in a warrant or 
in information to specify the particular kind of liquor jnanufactured, sold, offered for 
sale, kept for sale, trafficked in, bartered or exchanged for goods or merchandise, but 
it shall be sufficient to allege in the warrant or information that the accused manu¬ 
factured, sold, offered for sale, kept for sale, trafficked in, bartered or exchanged for 
goods or merchandise, or kept it deposited to sell or barter. 

Par. 21. That every person who shall, within the District of Columbia, directly 
or indirectly, keep or maintain, by himself or by associating or combining with others, 
or who shall in any manner aid, abet, or assist in keeping or maintaining any club- 
room or other place in which any intoxicating liquors, the sale of which without a 
license is prohibited by this section, is received or kept for the purpose of use, sale, 
barter, giving away, or otherwise furnishing, or for distribution or division among 
the members of any club or association by any means whatever, without first having 
a license so to do, or in sections of the District wherein the sale of intoxicating liquor 
is prohibited, and every person who shall use, sell, barter, give away, or otherwise 
furnish, distribute, or divide any such liquors so received or kept shall be guilty of 
a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties prescribed in paragraph twelve of this 
section. 

Par. 22. That any person who shall, in the District of Columbia, in any street or 
alley, in any public place, or in or upon any street car, or in or upon any other vehicle 
commonly used for the transportation of passengers, or in or about any depot, plat¬ 
form, or waiting station, drink any intoxicating liquor of any kind, or if any person 
shall be drunk or intoxicated in any street, alley, or public or private road, or in any 
passenger coach, street car, or any public place or building, or at any public gather¬ 
ing, or if any person shall be drunk or intoxicated and shall disturb the peace of any 
person, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be 
punished by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $100, or by imprisonment for 
not less than five days nor more than thirty days in the workhouse or jail of the District 
of Columbia, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 

Par. 23. That the issuance of an internal-revenue special tax receipt or certificate 
by the United States to any person as a wholesale or retail dealer in distilled liquors 
or in malt liquors at any place within the District of Columbia shall be prima facie 
evidence of the sale of intoxicating liquors by such person at such place, or at any 
other place of business of such person in the District where such special tax receipt 
is posted and at the time charged in any prosecution under this section, but such 
time must be within the life of such receipt or certificate. 

Par. 24. That in the interpretation of this section words of singular number shall 
be deemed to include their plurals, and words of masculine gender shall be deemed 
to include the feminine, as the case may be. 

Par. 25. That this section shall be in full force and effect from and after July first, 
nineteen hundred and thirteen, and shall be in lieu of and as a substitute for all 
existing laws and regulations in the District of Columbia in relation to the sale of 
intoxicating liquors in said District, except such laws as prohibit the sale of intoxi¬ 
cating liquors in certain defined sections or parts of the District and laws of Congress 
pertaining to persons, premises, and territory over which the Federal Government 
exercises jurisdiction; and all laws and parts of laws inconsistent with this section, 
except such laws above referred to, be, and they are hereby, repealed. 

Approved, March 4, 1913. 


[Public —No. 107.] 

An Act to prohibit the granting of liquor licenses within one mile of the Soldiers’ Home. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled , That on and after the passage of this act no license for the sale 
of intoxicating liquor at any place within one mile of the Soldiers’ Home property in 
the District of Columbia shall be granted. 

Approved, February 28, 1891. 

8451?'' S. Doc. 981, 63-3-4 




36 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


[Public —No. 47.] 

An Act to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors near the Government Hospital for the Insane and the 

Home for the Aged and Infirm. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled , That it shall be unlawful to sell, either by wholesale or retail, 
intoxicating liquor of any kind at any point between the Government Hospital for 
the Insane and the Home for the Aged and Infirm, or within a radius of one-half mile 
of the boundaries of either of the said properties. 

Approved, February 1, 1907. 


Rules and Regulation. 

ADOPTED BY THE EXCISE BOARD FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

In accordance with section 9 of an act making appropriations to provide for the 

expenses of the government of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending 

June 30, 1914, and for other purposes, approved March 4, 1913. 

(The number in parentheses after each section of these rules and regulations indicates the paragraph 
of the excise law involved. 

Wherever there is no reference to a paragraph of the excise law, the general power and authority of the 
excise board under the law has been invoked.) 

Section 1. Wherever the term “intoxicating liquors” is used in these rules and 
regulations it shall be deemed to include whisky, brandy, gin, wine, cordials, rum, 
ale, porter, beer, hard or fermented cider, and all other fermented, distilled, spir¬ 
ituous, vinous, and malt liquors, and every mixture of liquors which shall contain 
more than two per centum, by weight, of alcohol, and any mixture of liquor which 
shall contain less than two per centum of alcohol, if the same shall be intoxicating. (1) 

Sec. 2. No license shall be issued to a hotel, as such, having less than fifty bed¬ 
rooms for guests. This shall be effective from and after November first, nineteen 
hundred and thirteen. (2) 

Sec. 3. Beginning November first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, not more than 
three saloons or barrooms other than in hotels or clubs shall be permitted on one 
side of a street between intersecting streets, nor more than four on both sides of a 
street between intersecting streets. (2) < 

Sec. 4. Beginning November first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, no barroom 
license shall be granted within three hundred feet of any alleyway occupied for 
residences or places commonly called slums, measured between the nearest entrances 
thereto by the shortest course of travel, except upon the unanimous vote of all three 
members of the excise board. (2) 

Sec. 5. Beginning November first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, no saloon, 
barroom, or other place where intoxicating liquors are sold at retail or wholesale, 
Other than hotels and clubs, shall be licensed, allowed, or maintained within four 
hundred feet of any public schoolhouse, or a now located or established college, or 
university, or within four hundred feet of any now established house of religious 
worship, measured between the nearest entrances thereto by the shortest course of 
travel. (2) 

Sec. 6. Beginning November first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, no barroom 
licenses shall be granted on any side of a street where less than fifty per centum of 
the foot frontage between intersecting streets, excluding the part of buildings wherein 
barroom licenses are held, is used for business purposes: Provided , That this restric¬ 
tion shall not apply to hotels and clubs. (2) 

Sec. 7. Beginning November first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, wholesale 
licenses (to sell intoxicating liquors in quantities of five gallons and over) shall not 
be granted on any side of a street where less than fifty per centum of the foot frontage 
between intersecting streets, excluding the part of all buildings wdierein barroom 
licenses are held, is used for business purposes, except where intoxicating liquors 
are not to be sold and delivered on the premises. (2) 

Sec. 8. Wholesale licenses may be granted, without restriction as to location 
(except within four hundred feet of any public schoolhouse, or a now located or 
established college, or university, or within four hundred feet of any now established 
house of religious worship), in cases where the licensees sell intoxicating liquors in 
quantities less than five gallons. (2) 

Sec. 9. Should there be pending before the excise board on September second, 
nineteen hundred and fourteen, more than three hundred applications for renewals 
of barroom licenses, including those in hotels and clubs, filed by applicants equally 
worthy, in the opinion of the excise board, licenses will be refused to those appli¬ 
cants in excess of three hundred who last secured transfers of their licenses from the 
prohibited sections into the business streets. (2) 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


37 


Sec. 10. A blank form of petition for license to sell intoxicating liquors in the 
District of Columbia shall be furnished by the excise board to each person desiring 
to apply for such license. 

The petitions shall be considered and acted upon by the excise board in the order 
in which they are received. (4) 

Sec. 11. A notice shall be posted by the applicant conspicuously on the front of 
every building wherein a license to sell intoxicating liquors is applied for. Wher¬ 
ever the building fronts on two or more streets the notice shall be posted on each 
front. When a renewal of license is applied for the notice shall be posted from Sep¬ 
tember first to September fifteenth, both inclusive. When a transfer of license from 
one person to. another or from one location to another is applied for during the license 
year, the notice shall be posted for the period of fifteen days beginning with the day 
the application is filed. 

The excise board shall furnish each applicant with the notice card required to be 
posted. The form of such notice shall be as follows: 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN 

THAT. 

HAS APPLIED FOR A 

(Barroom or wholesale liquor) 

LICENSE AT THIS PLACE. 

During the time that the notice is posted no other sign of like size or appearance 
shall be displayed on the outside of the proposed licensee’s premises. (4) 

Sec. 12. All applicants for licenses or renewals of licenses for the license year 
beginning November first, nineteen hundred and thirteen, shall post the notice 
mentioned in section eleven of these rules and regulations from October first to 
October fifteenth, nineteen hundred and thirteen, both inclusive. (4) 

Sec. 13. All protests against the granting or.transferring of a license must be in 
writing, signed by the protestants, and filed with the excise board within ten days 
from the date of posting notice of application for such license or transfer. 

In any case where a protestant desires to be heard in person, the excise board shall 
fix the time for such hearing, and notice thereof shall be sent to the applicant for 
license as well as the protestant. (4) 

Sec. 14. There shall be three classes of barroom licenses, as follows: 

(a) Where the licensee conducts a barroom only, in which case he, or she, or it is 
prohibited from dispensing intoxicating liquors to women entirely, and is prohibited 
from dispensing liquors to adult males anywhere outside of the room where the bar is 
located. 

{ b) Where the licensee conducts a bar and restaurant and his, her, or its place of 
business has been declared a restaurant within the meaning of the excise law, the 
licensee may dispense intoxicating liquors (not personally, if a female) to adult males 
in any room on the premises, and may dispense intoxicating liquors (not personally, 
if a female) to adult females with meals only, and only in such dining rooms as are 
described in section twenty-three of these rules and regulations. 

(c) Where the licensee is a club or conducts a hotel, it, he, or she (not personally) 
may dispense intoxicating liquors to adult males anywhere on the premises, and may 
dispense intoxicating liquors (not personally, if a female) to adult females with meals 
only anywhere on the premises. (5) 

Sec. 15. Under a wholesale liquor license, intoxicating liquors shall be sold in 
sealed packages only and each package shall contain not less than one quart; except 
that any sealed original or bonded package containing not less than approximately one 
pint may be sold. (5) 

A “sealed original” package comprehends a package not filled at the time of sale, 
but one carried m stock, whether filled on the premises of the licensee or elsewhere. 

A “sealed” package comprehends a package securely sealed, whether sealed at the 
time of sale or before. (5) 

Sec. 16. Every license to a club or other corporation shall be issued in the name 
of its president, who shall make, execute, and swear to a petition for license con¬ 
taining: 

(а) The names and addresses of the officers and directors. 

(б) Except in cases of hotels, clubs, and makers, brewers, and distillers of intoxi¬ 
cating liquors, the names and addresses of all stockholders and the stockholding 
interest of each. 

Every application for license to a club shall be accompanied by the certificate of its 
president, in the following form: 

“In accordance with paragraph 5, section 9, of the act of Congress, appoved March 
4, 1913, constituting the liquor law of the District of Columbia, I., 




S8 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


president of.Club of the city of Washington, District of Columbia, 

hereby certify that said club is duly incorporated; that its membership is bona fide, 
all being on an equal status with equal privileges and responsibilities; that.its pur¬ 
poses are legitimate and that the sale of liquor intended is no more than an incident 
and is not a prime source of revenue; that the officers of said club are as follows, viz: 


“ President . ” (5) 

Sec. 17. Every corporation (including clubs and hotels) applying for a license shall 
file with its petition a certified copy of its charter or articles of incorporation. (5) 

Sec. 18. Minors under the age of eighteen may enter a wholesale liquor store in a 
ease where the licensee also sells merchandise other than intoxicating liquors, and 
where the intoxicating liquors are carried in stock and sold in a section of the store set 
apart for that purpose by a railing: Provided , That no minor, under the age of eighteen, 
shall be permitted to enter the place so set apart: And provided further , That no intoxi¬ 
cating liquors shall be sold, given away, or in any way disposed of to a minor. (6) 

Sec. 18. (a) For the purpose of cleaning up and doing other necessary work, li¬ 
censed premises may be entered or occupied by licensees and their regular employees 
between six forty-five o’clock a. m. and seven o’clock a. m., except on Sundays and 
Inauguration Day; and between the hours of ten o’clock a. m. and twelve o’clock noon 
en Sundays and Inauguration Day: Provided , That neither said licensees nor their 
employees shall drink, sell, give away, or dispense any intoxicating liquors during the 
times mentioned. (6) 

Sec. 19. A licensee desiring to transfer his, her, or its license from one location to 
another shall make application in writing to the excise board for such transfer, stating: 

(a) The exact location of the particular place for which a license is desired, desig¬ 
nating the same by street and number, if practicable, and if not, by such other apt 
description as will definitely locate it. 

( b) The full name and residence of the owner of the premises where the license is 
desired. 

No transfer (either to another person or another place) can be approved until the 
applicant therefor shall have paid to the collector of taxes of the District of Columbia 
the fee of $2 required by law, and evidence of such payment shall have been filed with 
the excise board. (8) 

Sec. 20. A. licensee desiring to transfer his, her, or its license to another shall make 
application in writing for such transfer, giving full name of proposed licensee. In 
every such case the proposed licensee shall file the petition for license referred to in 
section ten of these rules and regulations. (8) 

Sec. 20. (a) In case of the death of a licensee, the duly authorized personal represent¬ 
ative of the deceased or any person or persons authorized by the Supreme Court of the 
District of Columbia may, with the consent in writing of the excise board, conduct 
the business for a period of not exceeding thirty days after such death, and, unless 
the license be transferred within thirty days (including the fifteen days’ posting re¬ 
quired by sec. 11 of the rules and regulations) after the death of the licensee, the 
Hcense shall expire, in accordance with paragraph 15 of the excise law. 

Sec. 20. (6) Except in case of the death of a licensee any person or persons duly 
authorized by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia may, with the consent 
in writing of the excise board, conduct the business of a licensee for a period of not 
exceeding sixty days. In such cases posting of the licensed premises shall not be 
required. (8) 

Sec. 21. (a) No licensee shall allow any female, minor, or any person convicted of 
crime, to sell, give, furnish, or distribute any intoxicating liquors, or any admixture 
thereof, to any person or persons. 

(6) Except in cases of hotels, restaurants, and clubs, no licensee shall permit the 
playing of pool or billiards, or any other games whatever, in the room where intoxi¬ 
cating liquors are sold or drunk, or in any adjoining or intercommunicating room. 
Every pool or billiard room shall have a separate entrance from the street and no 
entrance from within the building accessible from the barroom. 

(c) Except in cases of hotels, restaurants, and clubs, no licensee shall permit the 
playing of music or theatricals of any kind, or provide other amusements in his, her, 
or its place of business or in connection therewith. 

(d) No licensee shall establish more than one bar under his, her, or its license. 







EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


39 


(e) Except in cases of hotels, restaurants, and clubs, no licensee shall sell or dis¬ 
pense intoxicating liquors elsewhere than in the room in which the bar is located. 

(/) .Only one entrance to a barroom from the street, which entrance shall be the one 
mentioned in his, her, or its application for license, is permitted; and no other entrance 
to said barroom from any street, or from any public or private alley or passageway 
outside of the building in which a barroom license is granted shall be used or allowed 
unless the excise board shall especially permit an extra entrance upon written appli¬ 
cation therefor by a licensee. 

(?) No licensee shall sell, give, furnish, or distribute any intoxicating liquors to 
any female, nor permit any female to loiter or remain in his, her, or its barroom; 
Provided, That bona fide guests of hotels, restaurants, and clubs having licenses to 
sell intoxicating liquors may be served with liquors at meals in such hotels, restau¬ 
rants, and clubs during the time liquor may be sold: Provided further, That no place 
shall be deemed a restaurant within the meaning of the excise law until the same 
shall have been declared such by action of the excise board. 

The provisions and prohibitions of this section of these rules and regulations became 
effective July first, nineteen hundred and thirteen. (14) 

Sec. 22. No place shall be declared a restaurant within the meaning of the excise 
law unless, in the opinion of the excise board, its kitchen and dining-room facilities 
are sufficient to prepare and serve regular meals to guests. (14) 

Sec. 23. Intoxicating liquors may be served to females in restaurants (declared 
such by the excise board) only with meals, meaning food for the female costing in 
each case not less than 25 cents, and only in a dining room having at least one entrance 
from a public hallway or from a main or public dining room, and the entrance shall 
afford a full view of the interior of the dining room at all times, and neither a door nor 
other means for shutting off, or partially shutting off, such view shall be attached 
thereto or used in connection therewith. No licensee shall keep or maintain any 
dining room not open to full view from a public hallway or a main or public dining 
room in the manner indicated herein. The closed door “private dining room” is 
prohibited. 

Sec. 24. In the issuance of licenses no distinction shall be made between males 
and females: Provided, That no female, including female licensees, shall be permitted 
to personally dispense intoxicaing liquors. (14) 

Sec. 25. The application of the personal representative of a deceased licensee for 
refund, or for transfer of license, shall be accompanied by a certified copy of his, her, 
or its letters testamentary or of administration, as the case may be. (15) 

Sec. 26. That which is generally known in clubs as the “locker system” is pro¬ 
hibited. (21) 

Sec. 27. Intoxicating liquors shall be dispensed only in sealed packages when 
intended for consumption elsewhere than at the place of sale. What is generally 
known as the “growler” or “bucket” trade is prohibited. 

Sec. 28. The name of the proprietor and the word “caf6,” “buffet,” “bar,” “bar¬ 
room,” or “restaurant” only shall be displayed by the licensee on the building 
wherein a barroom license has been granted, except in cases of hotels and clubs. 

Sec. 29. Where a wholesale license has been issued, in addition to the name of the 
proprietor the words “wholesale liquors and wines” only shall be displayed on the 
outside of the licensee’s premises, except in cases where merchandise other than 
intoxicating liquors is sold. The kinds and prices of liquors displayed in windows 
may be indicated by cards six inches square, and all other signs and cards advertising 
intoxicating liquors, visible from the street, are prohibited. 

Sec. 30. WOierever intoxicating liquors are sold, the display of obscene pictures is 

prohibited. . 

Sec. 31. No licensee shall permit barrels, kegs, or cases to remain on the pavement 
in front of his, her, or its premises longer than is absolutely necessary. 

Sec. 32. Two members of the excise board shall constitute a quorum for the 

transaction of business. , , 

Sec. 33. Interested persons and their attorneys are admonished not to attempt to 
discuss pending questions with individual members of the excise board; all such 
discussion must be had before members while sitting as a beard and not otherwise. 

The foregoing rules and regulations were adopted by the excise board the twenty- 
third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and amended to this tenth 
day of September, nineteen hundred and fourteen. 

Robert G. Smith, Chairman, 
Henry S. Baker, 

Cotter T. Bride, 

Excise Board for the District of Columbia. 

The Chairman. I have here a letter addressed to the excise board 
by Mr. Albert E. Shoemaker, your attorney, in which he sets out the 


40 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


instances in which the board made changes in the law. Will you 
please read that letter for the information of the committee ? 

Mr. Wilson. This letter reads as follows [reading]: 

Washington, D. C., September 25, 1913 
To the honorable the Excise Board, District of Columbia, 

District Building, Washington, D. C. 

Gentlemen: Yesterday and the day before you very kindly accorded me oppor¬ 
tunities to express to you verbally the objections of the Anti-Saloon League to certain 
sections of your recently adopted rules and regulations authorized by the excise law. 
In order that these objections may be made a matter of record in your office, and so 
that there may be no misunderstanding of the attitude of the league in reference 
thereto, I desire to submit the following memoranda: 

Section 2: The words “as such,” after the word “hotel,” are objected to for the 
reason that they appear to permit the granting of a barroom license to a hotel with 
less than 50 bedrooms for guests; in other words, such a hotel may have a barroom 
license, which, in my opinion, is at variance with the law, which, in section 2, pro¬ 
vides that “Hereafter no license shall be issued to a hotel having less than 50 bedrooms 
for guests.” 

Section 3: This section is objected to for the reason that it defers the reduction of 
the number of barrooms on blocks from November 1,1913, to November 1, 1914, which 
is at variance with the intent and purpose of the act. It is the duty of the excise 
board to refuse to relicense more than four barrooms on any one block, and not more 
than three on one side of any block. 

Section 4: This section is protested for the reason that it defers the right and privi¬ 
lege of a member of the excise board to object to the granting of a barroom license 
within 300 feet of an alley occupied for residents, or places commonly called “slums,” 
to November 1, 1914, which, in my opinion, is contrary to the expressed intent and 
purpose of the act. 

Section 5: This section is objected to because it permits the maintenance of bar¬ 
rooms and wholesale liquor establishments within 400 feet of public schoolhouses, 
established colleges, universities, and houses of religious worship for the year begin¬ 
ning November 1, 1913, contrary to what seems to be a plain provision of the law. 

Section 6: The last sentence of this section “that barroom licenses may be granted to 
hotels and clubs without restrictions as to location ” is contrary to law and is protested. 
The law provides no exception in favor of hotels and clubs when it comes to their loca¬ 
tion in residence districts or on residence streets. This section is further protested for 
the reason that it permits the granting and maintenance of barroom licenses on a side 
of a street where less than 50 per cent of the foot frontage between intersecting streets, 
excluding buildings wherein barroom licenses are held, is used for business purposes, 
until November 1, 1914, contrary to law. 

Section 8: This section is objected to because it permits licensing of wholesale 
liquor establishments on residence streets or in residence sections contrary to the 
expressed provisions of the law. 

Section 18: The expressed permission of the excise board given in this section for 
minors to enter wholesale liquor establishments where groceries or other merchan¬ 
dise are sold is objected to on the ground that the excise board has no power under 
the law to enact such a rule, as the same is contrary to the expressed provisions of 
the act. 

Section 24: This section is objected to because it is in violation of the spirit and 
plain intent of the law that females should not conduct bar rooms. 

The above-noted objections to your rules and regulations are not offered in an 
antagonistic .sense, nor are they intended in any way to reflect on the conscientious 
work and fairmmdedness of the members of the board. However, the constructions 
©f the law objected to, if allowed to stand, will so vitally reduce the force and effect 
©f the law that this protest is made necessary. 

. The Anti-Saloon League has a duty to perform on behalf of its large constituency 
in the District, which is anxious for the best possible results from the new law. With¬ 
out question, the act is a remedial one, and as such should be so administered; that 
questions arising under it involving doubt should be resolved in favor of the law and 
the community rather than in favor of the traffic in whatever form it takes. Believing 
thus, the Anti-Saloon League appeals to you to give further consideration to these 
matters before they are finally printed and given to the public. 

Very respectfully submitted. 

A. E. Shoemaker, 

Attorney, Anti-Saloon League, District of Columbia. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


41 


Senator Thompson. Did you or they later receive a reply to this 
letter ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; there was a reply received, and I have in my 
hand at this time an original copy of that reply, signed by the chair¬ 
man of the excise board, which was sent to me. 

Senator Thompson. What was the date of your letter? 

Mr. Wilson. The letter of Mr. Shoemaker was dated the 25th of 
September, 1913. 

Senator Thompson. And the answer of the excise board is dated 
September 26, 1913? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Just read that letter for the information of the 
committee. 

Mr. Wilson. The copy of this letter reads as follows [reading]: 

Excise Board for the District of Columbia, 

Washington , September 26 , 19IS. 

The Anti-Saloon League, Washington , D. C. 

Dear Sirs: The excise board is in receipt of your communication of the 25th 
instant, wherein objection is made to sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 18, 24 of its rules and 
regulations, recently adopted. 

The sections will be considered here in the order mentioned. 

Sections 2 to 5: Your objections to sections 2, 3, 4, 5 deal exclusively with the 
question “Shall any licensee who in the conduct of his business does not violate the 
law be deprived of his license or required to change his location prior to November 1, 
1914?” On this point the law reads: 

“In the issuing of licenses for barrooms it shall be the duty of the excise board to 
adopt such a policy as will reduce the number of barrooms, including those in hotels 
and clubs, to not exceeding three hundred by November first, nineteen hundred and 
fourteen, but no licensee who shall conduct his business within the law shall be de¬ 
prived of his license or required to change his location before November first, nineteen 
hundred and fourteen.’’ 

It is the opinion of the excise board that Congress meant just what it said, that no 
licensee who does not violate the law shall be deprived of his license prior to Novem¬ 
ber 1, 1914. This view is not only supported by the language of the law, but also 
by the very clear expressions of views by Members of the House of Representatives 
on the floor of the House during the discussion of the excise law. 

The Hon. Edwin Y. Webb said: 

“We extend the time for the reduction of the number of saloons to 300 to November, 
1914. That gives the present barkeepers 18 months to sell out and close up business.” 
(Cong. Record, vol. 49, No. 74, p. 4723.) 

The Hon. Swagar Sherley said: 

“It gives 18 months to men now in the saloon business to accommodate themselves 
to the new conditions. It does regulate by eventually reducing the number of saloons 
to 300, and included in that number are the clubs, which are limited to 25.” (Cong. 
Record, vol. 49, No. 74, p. 4715.) 

Section 6. The excise board has declared that it was not the intention of Congress 
to eliminate clubs and hotels from the residential portions of the District. While the 
law recognizes only two kinds of licenses, “wholesale liquor and barroom licenses,” 
it clearly distinguishes between a barroom as an institution and a barroom license. 
In paragraph 2 of the excise law, which excludes barrooms from residential streets, 
the law distinctly refers to “barrooms” and not to all institutions having “barroom 
licenses.” The language of the law is: 

“Hereafter no license shall be granted for the establishment or maintenance of a 
barroom or other place for the sale of intoxicating liquors * * * in any residence 
portion of the District of Columbia; and it shall be the duty of the excise board to 
determine in the case of each application for license whether the location where the 
barroom is to be located is or is not within the business portion of the District, * * ; 

Provided , That no license shall be granted for any saloon or barroom on any side of 
any square, block, or tract of land where less than fifty per centum of the foot frontage, 
not including saloons or hotels and clubs having barroom licenses * * 

In practically every other paragraph of the law hotels and clubs are expressly ex¬ 
empted from the restrictions placed on barrooms or saloons. And it is clear that in 
eliminating licenses from residential streets there was no intention to disturb clubs 
and hotels, the plain purpose of Congress being to wipe out barrooms as such. 


42 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Section 8. The law reads: 

“Hereafter no license shall be granted for the establishment or maintenance of a 
barroom or other place for the sale of intoxicating liquors, otherwise than in sealed 
packages and not to be drunk on the premises in any residence portion of the District 
of Columbia; * * * nor shall intoxicating liquors be sold at wholesale outside of 
the business districts as above provided.” 

A casual reading of this language leads to the conclusion that the opening sentence 
is directly contradicted by the closing one. A careful study of the entire paragraph, 
however, and of the entire excise law, indicates that Congress did not intend to 
eliminate from residential streets the fancy grocery stores which incidentally handle 
intoxicating liquors for the family trade. To reach the conclusion that wholesale 
licenses were to be excluded it would be necessary to eliminate from the law entirely 
the words “otherwise than in sealed packages and not to be drunk on the premises.” 
The excise board is not of the opinion that the language quoted is meaningless. It is 
the duty, of the excise board in construing the law to give effect to all of its language 
wherever by doing so a reasonable conclusion can be reached. The rules and regula¬ 
tions provide that the fancy grocery and liquor store is not to be eliminated from the 
residential streets, but that the large wholesale liquor establishments shall be, thus 
giving effect to all the language quoted. 

Section 18. The language of the law involved in this section is: 

“No minor under the age of eighteen years shall be allowed to enter or be permitted 
to remain in any place where intoxicating liquors are sold, other than a hotel, res¬ 
taurant, or club; * * 

While this language would appear to preclude permitting a minor in any store where 
intoxicating liquors are sold, the excise board concluded that Congress did not intend 
to prohibit the sending of a minor into a fancy grocery store for groceries because 
intoxicating liquors might also be on sale therein. It is to be noticed that minors are 
not permitted to enter or remain “in any place where intoxicating liquors are sold.” 
This section of the rules and regulations expressly provides that no minor shall be 
permitted to enter or remain in the place in a store where intoxicating liquors are 
carried in stock or sold; that place must be railed off and minors are prohibited from 
entering therein. 

Section 24. There is not one word in the entire excise law directly precluding the 
granting of a license to a female. At the time of the enactment of this legislation 
more than 30 females held liquor licenses in the District of Columbia, and had Congress 
intended to legislate them out of business it could and would have said so directly. 
As showing a contrary intention, the language of paragraph 24 is: 

“That in the interpretation of this section words of singular number shall be deemed 
to include their plurals, and words of masculine gender shall be deemed to include the 
feminine, as the case may be.” 

Respectfully, Jos. C. Sheehy, Chairman. 

The Chairman. What occasion have you had to observe the manner 
in which the excise board has conducted itself in reference to the 
licensing of saloons and permitting them to operate in the District? 

Mr. Wilson. Broadly speaking, I am of the opinion that the excise 
board has exercised its discretion as far as possible on the side of the 
liquor interests. There is one case which was a flagrant violation 
of the law, in my opinion. Louise Gordon was permitted to operate 
a barroom, in violation of the law and without a license, from March 
15, 1914, until the morning of June 27, 1914, and it was then closed 
by reason of representation which I personally made to the Hon. 
Frederick L. Siddons, then Commissioner of the District of Colum¬ 
bia. I think I have somewhere a letter which I wrote on that 
occasion—a copy of it. On June 26, 1914, by chance I met Mr. 
Siddons in a lunch room. He asked me what I thought about the con¬ 
ditions at the excise board. I told him they were not very good; 
that there were some very unpleasant things occurring; and that 
the most striking one that I recalled at that moment was the per¬ 
mitting of a barroom to run at 407 Q Street without a license from 
March 15 until that time. That afternoon I wrote this letter to 
Mr. Siddons [reading]: 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


43 


June 26, 1914. 

Hon. Frederick L. Siddons, 

Commissioner of the District of Columbia, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Commissioner: Your attention is respectfully called to the continued 
violation of the excise law at 407 Q Street NW. This place is undoubtedly being run 
without a license. 

It appears John H. Gordon had a license for a barroom at said place. Mr. Gordon 
died February 13, 1914. On April 28, 1914, Louise Gordon, the widow, made appli¬ 
cation for a transfer of the license from the estate to herself. Under the law no transfer 
could be permitted after the expiration of 30 days from the date of John H. Gordon’s 
death. A hearing on the application was had before the excise board May 19, 1914. 
Many cases have been heard and acted upon since that hearing and yet no decision in 
that case. This is all the more remarkable because in addition to the plain provisions 
of the law the corporation counsel has filed an opinion in the case. If the excise 
board can permit the violation of the law in this case the same course can be pursued 
in any number of cases. 

Not only as president of the Anti-Saloon League, but also as a citizen and as the 
owner of four houses in that general locality, I request that as the commissioner in 
charge of the Metropolitan police you close the said saloon at 407 Q Street NW., by 
taking whatever measures may be necessary and proper to accomplish the purpose. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

Andrew Wilson. 


In response to that letter I received from Commissioner Siddons 
the one I hold in my hand. 

Mr. Wilson [reading]: 

Commissioners of the District of Columbia, 

Washington, June 27, 1914 . 

Mr. Andrew Wilson, 

Attorney at Law, Evans Building. 

Dear Mr. Wilson: I have your letter of the 26th instant, calling attention to wha^ 
you believe is a continued violation of the excise law at the place mentioned in you r 
letter. Having ascertained that the corporation counsel was called upon to rende r 
an opinion in this very case, I have referred your letter to him with instructions to 
take such action as is appropriate, should his investigations lead him to conclude that 
there is a violation of the law as stated by you. 

Very truly, yours, F. L. Siddons, 

Commissioner. 

That matter was called to the attention of the excise board by the 
authorities, and on the morning of June 27, 1914, the said saloon was 
closed by order of said board. A new license, however, has been 
granted to Louise Gordon at said number, and the saloon is now in 
existence at that place. 

The Chairman. When was that new license granted, Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. Wilson. It was issued on the morning of the 31st of October, 
1914. 

The Chairman. What is it you are looking for now? 

Mr. Wilson. I was looking for a letter that I wrote protesting 
against the licensing of that place. It is in a residence section. 

Senator Thompson. Did you make that objection in the first place 
to the board, that it was in a residence section ? 

Mr. Wilson. Not further than I have indicated in the letter, that 
I was a property owner in that community. Within a few squares 
of that place I happen to have four houses. Under date of October 
6, 1914, I wrote the following letter to the excise board [reading]: 

October 6, 1914. 

The honorable the Excise Board, 

Washington , D. C. 

Gentlemen: As a citizen and property owner I protest against the granting of the 
application of Louise Gordon for a barroom license at 407 Q Street NW. This place is 
in a residence district. 


44 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


From March 15, 1914, to June 27, 1914, this place was operated without a license. 
The law contemplates that those who disobey the law shall not be licensed. While 
the law provides the excise board must act after conviction for illegal sales, the spirit 
of the law relates to the offense, the violation of the law, rather than the conviction. 

It is wholly unnecessary to recite the history of this case and the criticism it has 
occasioned. 

Very truly, yours, Andrew Wilson. 

The Chairman. Was there any reply? 

Mr. Wilson. There was no reply by the excise board to that 
letter, and the license was granted. 

Senator Thompson. There is a saloon running there now ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; there was a few days ago. It has been about 
a week since I was by there. 

The Chairman. I believe you stated that you claimed that this 
saloon was located in a residence district, or a nonbusiness district? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Or on a nonbusiness street ? 

Mr. Wilson. It is on a nonbusiness street. It is in a residence 
section. 

The Chairman. It is at 407 Q Street NW., is it not? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Very well, Mr. Wilson. Now, give us what other 
instances have come within your notice as to the actions of the excise 
board in administering the laws relating to saloons and the liquor 
traffic. 

Mr. Wilson. If I may recur for a moment to the rules, I think 
there has been a very gross violation of the spirit of the law in issuing 
restaurant licenses to places called hotels which have less than 50 bed¬ 
rooms for guests. One of the chief reasons for the enactment of the 
Jones-Works law, as those who proposed it thought, was to get rid 
of a large class or to get rid of a large number of places of a class 
which were deemed entirely undesirable in the District of Columbia— 
places in which immoral practices were indulged. There was one case 
that came under my observation as attorney, and the record of it is 
now in the courts, in the Court of Appeals. That was the case of the 
El Reno Hotel, which was immediately opposite the B. & O. Station 
here. I happened, upon cross-examination of the proprietor of that 
establishment in a divorce case, to ask him, when he presented his 
hotel registers, to read into the record for a certain day, to which I 
happened to open, for the cross-examination. The testimony in the 
case showed that there were 24 rooms available for guests. On the 
particular Sunday to which I opened and which I had the proprietor 
read into that record there were 47 registrations; 46 of them were 
of couples, and there were two rooms winch had served three couples 
each on that particular Sunday. That came out in the case of Matte- 
son versus Matteson, the number of which I can not give, but in which 
I was counsel for Mr. Matteson. 

The Chairman. What was the character of that case? 

Mr. Wilson. It was a divorce case. 

The Chairman. When was that case tried ? 

Mr. Wilson. It was decided on the 23d of December, 1910; and 
Mr. Justice Gould, in announcing the decision, stated that the El Reno 
and the Arizona and others, which he did not name—but he did name 
those two— were judicially known to the courts to be houses of assig¬ 
nation. That was the expression he used. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 45 

The Chairman. Did the present excise board give that place a 
license ? 

Mr. Wilson. No; that was before this excise board; but I was giv¬ 
ing this as the reason. I was saying that these and many places of 
this kind formed the reason why the reform organizations of Wash¬ 
ington desired the enactment of a law which would preclude possibility v 
of such conduct as that at the El Reno. This was in response to the 
question why we had asked for the enactment of this provision of the 
law, and that is somewhat nullified by the excise board. 

The Chairman. Was not a bar conducted in this El Reno up to 
within the last year or two ? 

Mr. Wilson. It went out at the time the excise hoard decided that 
this law went fully into effect. I can not say when it did go out; but 
it is out now. 

The Chairman. Did the present excise board refuse to license the 
El Reno, or have you any knowledge as to that? 

Mr. Wilson. I have not any knowledge as to that. I do not believe 
this excise board did license the El Reno. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any hotels that have been guilty 
of similar practices since the present excise board came into being ? 

Mr. Wilson. I have no personal knowledge, nor do I have any 
records. There are two rather large hotels uptown that have been 
frequently charged with violation of the excise law, and I have no 
doubt- 

The Chairman. I would not say as to them, then. 

Mr. Wilson. No; I do not personally know. 

Senator Thompson. Who could give us that information; do 
you know? 

Mr. Wilson. The Grand Hotel has been in the courts. We have 
the record in the case of the Grand Hotel. That has been in the 
courts. 

The Chairman. I will ask you if it is not a fact that a police officer 
made a report as to immoral practices in the Grand Hotel within the 
last few months ? 

Mr. Wilson. That is my understanding; that there is a report on 
file which the excise board has as a part of their records, with refer¬ 
ence to the Grand Hotel. 

The Chairman. Have you a list of the hotels with less than 50 
rooms that have liquor licenses? 

Mr. Wilson. I have not, personally. 

The Chairman. I have a list here which purports to give the names 
of the hotels or hotel keepers who have saloon licenses, and who have 
less than 50 rooms [reading]: 

Geo. J. Bessler, 922 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

Gustav Buchholz, 1411 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

J. H. De Atley, 1222 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

Harvey Co. (Inc.), 1016 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

Charles Mades, 300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

Henry M. Marks, 1000 E Street NW. 

John M. Perreard, 513 Thirteenth Street NW. 

Jos. Schladt, 1238 Wisconsin Avenue NW. 

It is evident that the Grand Hotel is not in this list. 

Mr. Wilson. No; it is a larger hotel. 

The Chairman. It is a hotel with more than 50 rooms that has a 
liquor license, but which has been charged with being the rendezvous 



46 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

for immoral and disreputable practices. Further evidence will be 
adduced on this subject later. 

Now, Mr. Wilson, any further instances the committee would be 
glad to have, since this board came into existence. 

Mr. Wilson. The board permits a beer depot to exist which is at 
the edge of the mile limit of the Soldiers’ Home, in Eckington. I 
was present at the hearing, and the beer establishment at that place 
changed its entrance so that the entrance to the place would not be 
within the mile limit. 

The Chairman. Do you state about that from your personal 
knowledge ? 

Mr. Wilson. I speak from what I heard before the excise board 
and what I know of the action of the excise board, because I ap¬ 
peared in the case before the excise board; that is, I appeared against 
these places which had the depot within a mile of the Soldiers’ Home. 

The Chairman. You have not personally examined that locality? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, I have personally examined it. I know the 
locality. I know what the testimony there has been. 

The Chairman. You know the entrance was changed? 

Mr. Wilson. I know the entrance was changed, and the records of 
the excise board will show that. 

Senator Thompson. The place of drinking was just the same, was 
it not? 

Mr. Wilson. It was a depot from which beer was delivered to 
various parts of the city. 

The Chairman. You protested against the location of this beer 
depot at this point, did you? 

Mr. Wilson. We did; and the Anti-Saloon League was repre¬ 
sented at the hearing by Mr. Shoemaker, and I was also there. 

The Chairman. The board took the position that that is not a 
saloon ? 

Mr. Wilson. No, it was not a saloon. It is a wholesale depot for 
the delivery of beer and is doubtless run by one of the large out-of- 
town breweries as an agency or distributing plant of its products to 
the citizens of the District of Columbia, or others who care to buy. 

Senator Thompson. Was that place located within the mile limit? 

Mr. Wilson. The entrance was within the mile limit. 

Senator Thompson. I am speaking of the place itself. 

Mr. Wilson. A little of it is, but most of it is out. The mile limit 
runs right through it, and they have arranged that the entrance is 
outside of the mile limit, but a part of the establishment is now 
within the mile limit, or was recently. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Wilson. There have been a large number of instances in which 
the licenses have been granted for places within 400 feet of schools 
and churches in the District of Columbia, if the measurements are 
made according to the law; that is, by the shortest course of travel, 
which I interpret to mean the shortest way that a man would 'walk 
over a public right of way between the nearest entrances of the 
buildings. 

The Chairman. I will state that we are having the District sur¬ 
veyor make the measurements between the saloons and the churches, 
schools, colleges, and universities that are claimed to be within 400 
feet of those saloons. 


EXCISE BOARD OE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


47 


Mr. Wilson. I know that the attention of the excise board was 
called in writing to the distance from the north entrance of the New 
York Avenue Presbyterian Church to Mr. Schriner’s place on Four¬ 
teenth Street, making the measurement at right angles, and that that 
distance was 375 feet; but there was no response to that communica¬ 
tion, and the license was granted. I did have a conversation with 
one member of the excise board in regard to it. 

The Chairman. What was that conversation ? 

Mr. Wilson. I simply said to him, “This man is within 400 feet of 
this church—of the entrance to this church.’’ He patted me on the 
shoulder and said, “Well, that is all right; that is all right.” 

Senator Thompson. With whom did you talk? 

Mr. Wilson. Cotter T. Bride. 

The Chairman. Was that all your conversation? 

Mr. Wilson. That was practically all the conversation in regard 
to that at that time. 

The Chairman. Did you have any other conversation with Mr. 
Bride or with any other member of the board with regard to measure¬ 
ments ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

The Chairman. State what it was ? 

Mr. Wilson. Mr. Bride stated to me that we could make our own 
measurements as well as the excise board could make them, and that 
he deemed that it would be wise for us to make them. He stated in 
substance that the measurement when it was made from the Eastern 
High School entrance to a saloon on that street was not properly 
measured by the excise board. He did not say in so many words 
that the measurement was made in a fraudulent way, but he did say 
that “any of you could pull back the end of a tape line to make it 
over 400 feet,” or words to that effect; and he said that he did not 
carry the tape line; that another member of the board had it. 

Tne Chairman. Did you have any further conversations with Mr. 
Bride or with any other member of the board regarding measure¬ 
ments ? 

Mr. Wilson. I do not recall any other conversation regarding 
measurement, except in reference to the Frank P. Hall case, after 
there had been two evenings occupied in the hearing of testimony 
against Mr. Hall’s establishment. 

The Chairman. What was that ? 

Mr. Wilson. At that time Mr. Bride stated to me that it was 
impossible for him to hold out against the other two members of the 
board, and that Frank Hall’s license would have to be granted, he 
said, unless we could furnish very much more testimony than we 
had furnished. He stated that he had already had two rows with 
the other members of the excise board in regard to the matter, and 
he said, “You must present more testimony;” and then I said to 
him, “Mr. Flail, when he was on the stand, testified that the alley 
was inhabited near his saloon, and there were a number of houses 
that were inhabited,” and I said, “Being inhabited, it only takes 
one man to prevent the issuance of that license,” and I said, “I am 
ask you to see that that miserable place is not again 

Senator Thompson. What was the number of that place ? 

Mr. Wilson. That was at Seventh and K Streets SW., and the 
license was refused. 



48 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


- Senator Thompson. It was refused ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. He stated that he would vote against it, and 
they cut it out. 

The Chairman. You say that was the case of Frank P. Hall?* 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

The Chairman. He has a license now, has he not ? 

Mr. Wilson. No; not there. 

The Chairman. Is he not conducting a saloon now at No. 1000 
Seventh Street SW. ? 

Mr. Wilson. I think that is his brother. 

The Chairman. Have you had conversations with any members 
of the board regarding any other matters connected with the excise 
law and its administration ? 

Mr. Wilson. I have, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Will you state what those conversations were? 

Mr. Wilson. I had a conversation with Mr. Bride in regard to a place 
on Pennsylvania avenue SE. My recollection is that it is between 
Sixth and Seventh Streets, and the man’s name is McDonald. As I 
recall, two licenses were refused upon this square—two transfers of 
licenses were refused upon this square—and later Mr. McDonald, 
either by himself or through intermediaries, purchased from Mr. 
John F. Donahue a property which Mr. Donahue was holding at 
$5,200, and that, I was told, was the price paid to Mr. Donahue. 

The Chairman. You are now detailing what Mr. Bride told you! 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. Whether he had the information personally 
or whether he got it in some other way, I do not know, but I am telling 
you what he told me. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Wilson. And that either his information was or that the fact 
was that Mr. McDonald had agreed to pay for that property with a 
bar in it and a license transferred to him, the sum of $19,500, and 
that the bar had cost approximately $2,500. I also had practically 
the same information from Mr. William H. Manogue, an attorney, 
former collector of the port of Georgetown. 

Senator Thompson. You say you talked this over with members 
of the board ? 

Mr. Wilson. I did; with Mr. Bride. 

Senator Thompson. And they issued a license there ? 

Mr. Wilson. They issued a license there. 

Senator Thompson. Have you in mind any other violations, as 
you construe the law, since the present board came into existence ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, I have; and I had occasion to write, or did 
write, to the board in regard to apparent irregularities which seemingly 
they might have prevented. On July 6 I wrote two letters. My 
copies, however, I think I furnished to Senator Jones prior to the 
time that he made his speech in the Senate, and I do not have them, 
but I have the reply to those letters here, under date of July 8, 1914. 

Senator Thompson. You called their attention to those matters, 
then, by letter ? 

Mr. Wilson. By letter. There were two matters to which I 
called attention in one of the letters. One was that an attorney had 
told me that a client of his had come to him and stated that the six 
saloon keepers opposite the Center Market on that street had been 
approached by a brewer who had stated that a certain attorney 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


49 


must be employed—Joseph C. Sheehy was the attorney—otherwise 
they would not get their licenses. This lawyer told me this at Four¬ 
teenth and New York Avenue, and the name of the attorney is Michael 
J. Colbert, and another party was with me at the time, Judge Anson S. 
Taylor, who heard the statement made by Mr. Colbert. I called 
the attention of the excise board to that state of facts. I also wrote 
them concerning a rumor that large fees were contracted to be paid 
for the transfer of a license to the Evans Building, where my office 
then was. I asked them to investigate, and this is the response that 
I had to these two letters [reading]: 


Excise Board for the District of Columbia, 
Washington , July 8, 1914 . 

Dear Sir: The excise board acknowledges receipt of your two communications 
dated the 6th instant, referring, the one, to Thomas Raftery, who conducts a barroom 
at 234 C Street NE., as furnishing intoxicating liquors to minors, in the presence of 
Messrs. E. W. Oyster and Alexander Mackenzie; the other, to fees said to have been 
paid to attorneys, with an expression of your views as to what might be done in the 
premises. 

As to Mr. Raftery selling to minors, the gentlemen who witnessed such alleged 
sale could have filed their information with the corporation counsel, as provided in 
paragraph 18 of the excise law. 

The matter of fees for professional services, the board feels, is one for attorneys 
and their clients on either side of the question. That services should not require 
extra large fee in any excise case is the board’s belief, yet it also feels that the 
presence of attorneys should not be regarded with suspicion whatever the fee paid. 
As a matter of fact, the excise law does not contemplate the presentation of either side 
of any case through attorneys. 

The excise board is grateful for the manner in which you have brought these matters 
to its attention, but can not see how, within its powers, the situations referred to can 
be improved at this time. 

Respectfully, 

R. G. Smith, Chairman. 

Mr. Andrew Wilson, 

Evans Building , City. 


The Chairman. Have you had any further conversations with mem¬ 
bers of the excise board ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; I had a number of conversations with members 
of the excise board at different times. One of the first conversations 
that I had, that I recall, was that with the then chairman, Mr. Sheehy. 
I asked Mr. Sheehy what they were doing toward the investigation of 
violations of law, and asked him if the inspector had inspected at all. 
He said that he had not, but they were going to get him out to inspec¬ 
tion right away, and they knew there would be criticism if they did 
not do it. 

The Chairman. Have you had any conversation with any member 
of the board along the line of any collections being made for members 
of the board for any purpose ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes: I have. 

The Chairman. Please state it. 

Mr. Wilson. Mr. Bride said to me, either as a fact or upon infor¬ 
mation, that two young men in Washington were collecting funds for 
one member of the excise board. 

The Chairman. Did he say from whom they were collecting the 
funds ? 

Mr. Wilson. He intimated that they were—he did not say spe¬ 
cifically from whom they were collecting, but the inference was- 

The Chairman. Well, I would not state that. 



50 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Wilson. We were talking of saloon keepers and their paying 
money for the purpose of getting their licenses and getting transfers of 
licenses. That is what we were talking of at that time. 

The Chairman. Did he give the names of the young men ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

The Chairman. What were they? 

Mr. Wilson. One was Mr. Columbus and the other was Mr. Baker’s 
son. I think Mr. Columbus’s initials are W. F., and Mr. Baker’s son’s 
initials I do not recollect. 

The Chairman. That is the son of Mr. Baker, a member of the 
excise board? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Did you have any further conversation that you 
now recall along those lines, that would throw any light on the sub¬ 
ject matter of this investigation? 

Mr. Wilson. I recall it was stated to me that undoubtedly large 
fees were being paid to attorneys. 

The Chairman. Now, who told you that? 

Mr. Wilson. Mr. Bride told me that he understood large fees were 
being paid to attorneys; but he stated he did not know what became 
of the fees after they were paid. I do not know that he had personal 
knowledge, or that he said that he did, that they were paid. 

Senator Thompson. Did he say anything about the amounts? 

Mr. Wilson. I am not sure that he stated the amount in any case, 
except in McDonald’s case to which I have referred. I know there 
were many suggestions of fees, but I do not know that they came from 
the board. 

Senator Thompson. What was that last statement? 

Mr. Wilson. There have been many suggestions of fees that have 
been paid, but I could not say that there were any of those that came 
from the board itself, except in the McDonald case. 

Senator Thompson. You mean- 

Mr. Wilson. That fees were being paid to attorneys for transfers of 
licenses—very large fees. 

Senator Thompson. Do you know anything about the amounts 
charged, to be paid, or anything of the kind ? 

Mr. Wilson. Not personally. We have the record in the case of 
Columbus v. Sheehy, where $5,500 was to be paid for the transfer of 
the license to the Evans Building. 

The Chairman. Please state what that record was. 

Mr. Wilson. One McCarthy, who had had a license down in south¬ 
west Washington, not far from the railroad tracks, applied for a 
transfer of license to the Evans Building, 1420-1424 New York Ave¬ 
nue NW. He was represented in that case by W. F. Columbus and 
Joseph C. Sheehy. Mr. Sheehy was the former chairman of the 
excise board. At a time prior to this there was some talk of an 
attempted transfer to the Evans Building, when Mr. Sheehy was on 
the board, and I spoke to Mr. Sheehy about it, and Mr. Sheehy told 
me they would not permit a transfer of a license to the Evans Build¬ 
ing; that it would be an outrage to bring it there. This license was 
transferred by the excise board. I wrote, on July 6, a letter pro¬ 
testing against it. 

Senator Thompson. What year was that ? 

Mr. Wilson. 1914. I called attention to the large fees which it 
was said were being paid in that case. 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


51 


Senator Thompson. Have you a copy of that letter there ? 

Mr. Wilson. I have not. I think that copy was furnished to one 
of the Senators. I haven’t it now. The board, however, undoubt¬ 
edly has it as a part of its records. Mr. Sheehy and Mr. Columbus 
represented the applicant at the hearing before the excise board, and 
were probably there an hour and a half or two hours. I was present 
throughout the hearing. The record in the court shows that a $500 
retainer was paid. Afterwards Mr. Sheehy received $2,500, and Mr. 
Columbus sued him for one-half of that sum. A copy of Mr. Justice 
Stafford’s opinion gives all that data and his reasons for dismissing 
the action. 

The Chairman. Will you state the reason why he dismissed the 
action ? 

Mr. Wilson. Because contracts to get transfers of licenses or to 
procure liquor licenses on a contingent fee are contrary to public 
policy and public morals. 

The Chairman. Did he hold that a contract for a fee immediately 
paid was contrary to public policy ? 

Mr. Wilson. I think he did not touch that question. 

The Chairman. His holding was that a contingent fee given for 
the purpose of securing either a license or a transfer was contrary to 
public policy ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, Mr. Chairman; that is the holding. Perhaps, 
if I may be permitted, I might get a copy of the opinion and insert it 
here. 

(The opinion of Justice Stafford is here printed in full, as follows:) 

Supreme Court of the District of Columbia—William F. Columbus, Plaintiff, 
v. Joseph C. Sheehy, Defendant. 

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT; CONTINGENT FEES; PUBLIC POLICY. 

1. A party having a claim against an individual or against the Government may 
lawfully agree with attorneys for a contingent fee to be paid the latter for services in 
prosecuting such claim. 

2. Where, however, the services to be rendered by the attorneys are to consist in 
securing the transfer of a liquor license from one location to some other, and the agree¬ 
ment is for a contingent fee to be paid upon success in securing such transfer, the con¬ 
tract is against public policy and is therefore void. 

3. Where in an action by one of the attorneys so employed against the other to re¬ 
cover one-half of payments made by the client to defendant on account of such fee, 
held that the invalidity of the contract sued upon appearing from the affidavit of 
plaintiff no recoyery could be had thereunder and judgment entered for defendant. 

At law, No. 57265. Decided November 6, 1914. 

Hearing on a motion for judgment under the seventy-third rule. Judgment for 
defendant. 

Mr. L. A. Bailey for the plaintiff. 

Mr. F. J. Hogan and Mr. D. W. Baker for the defendant. 

Mr. Justice Stafford delivered the opinion of the court: 

The cause was heard upon the plaintiff’s motion under the seventy-third rule for 
judgment in his favor for the amount claimed in his declaration upon the ground that 
the affidavit of defense, if true, is insufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s claim in whole 
or in part. 

An examination of the declaration and fortifying affidavit shows that the plaintiff 
is attempting to enforce a contract that is clearly void as against public policy. Both 
the plaintiff and the defendant are practicing members of this bar. Prior to May 4, 
1914, one McCarthy, a proprietor of a barroom license in the District of Columbia, 
requested the plaintiff to secure the transfer of said license to another location, the 
place to which said license then applied being in a restricted district, under the terms 

84513° —S. Doc. 981, 63-3-5 


52 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


of the excise law. Thereupon the plaintiff invited the defendant to join with him 
in the tendered employment. The defendant accepted the invitation, and the plain¬ 
tiff, the defendant, and McCarthy all subscribed a contract in the following words: 

“Fee agreement, made this 4th day of May, 1914, between Dennis J. McCarthy, 
party of the first part, and William F. Columbus and Joseph C. Sheehy, parties of the 
second part, is as follows: 

“1. The party of the first part hereby employs the parties of the second part to 
represent him before the excise board of the District of Columbia in the matter of his 
application for a transfer of his license from No. 332 Fourteenth Street SW. to the 
ground floor of the Evans Building, or elsewhere. 

“2. The party of the first part shall pay the parties of the second part a retainer 
of $500 and an additional fee of $5,000 should his license be transferred to the ground 
floor of the Evans Building or elsewhere. 

“3 The parties of the second part accept the employment aforesaid and will 
endeavor to secure the transfer of the license of the party of the first part.” 

Thereupon McCarty paid the $500 retaining fee called for by the contract and the 
same was divided equally between the plaintiff and defendant. After the public 
hearing on the application for the transfer before the excise board, the plaintiff and 
defendant both participating therein, the board granted the transfer. Thereafter 
defendant collected $2,500 of the $5,000 contingent fee from McCarthy and refuses 
to divide the same with the plaintiff. The plaintiff finding himself unable to collect of 
McCarthy, now seeks to recover in this action one-half of the $2,500 collected by the 
defendant, upon the theory that they were equal partners in the business, and that 
anything collected by either must be equally divided between the two. It will not be 
necessary to consider the sufficiency of the defendant’s affidavit, but it may be fair 
to state that his position seems to be that he was to have his fee of $2,500 whether 
the plaintiff received anything or not. 

The question to be decided by the excise board was one to be determined in the 
public interest. McCarthy had no legal right to have his license transferred. (See 
the excise law, 37 Stat., 997.) McCarthy was not in the position of a claimant seeking 
to enforce a legal right, and who might therefore employ attorneys upon a contingent 
fee. His position was more analogous to that of the defendant in Haselton v. Miller, 
reported under the name of Haselton v. Sheckells (202 U. S., 71), who had a parcel of 
real estate which he wished to dispose of to the Government, or like the parties in other 
cases referred to in that opinion who wished to secure contracts with the Government. 
In such cases it is well settled that a contract to pay an attorney a contingent fee for 
securing the contract or the purchase of the plaintiff’s property by the Government is 
void, as against public policy, the reason being that it is of evil tendency in that it 
naturally tempts the attorney to the use of improper means to accomplish his client’s 
purpose. In the present case, the amount of the contingent fee, $5,000, is so dispro- 
portioned to any legitimate legal services to be rendered as to furnish an additional 
reason for holding the contract to be one of evil tendency. The invalidity oFthe 
contract does not depend upon the questionable character of the services actually 
rendered or agreed to be rendered, but results from the fact that its natural tendency 
is to prompt efforts which are against the public interest. In the Haselton case, the 
court assumed that the services were legitimate, but struck down the contract for 
the reason above stated, remarking that the court would not inquire what was actually 
done, inasmuch as the arrangement “necessarily invited and tended to induce 
improper solicitations and intensified the inducement by the contingency of the 
reward.” 

It is undoubtedly legal for parties to stipulate for a contingent fee to be paid for 
services in prosecuting a plaintiff’s claim against an individual or against the Gov¬ 
ernment, but in such cases the claim is a demand of some matter as of right. The 
present case does not belong to this class. In the class of cases to which this does 
belong the plaintiff has a right to employ an attorney to represent him and has a 
right to pay such an attorney for his services, but he has not a right to do so upon a 
contingent fee for the reason above stated. The brief filed for the plaintiff proceeds 
upon the theory that wherever the plaintiff has a right to employ a paid attorney 
he has a right to engage the attorney upon a contingent fee. A manufacturer would 
have a right to employ and pay an attorney to appear before a committee of Congress 
and show such reasons as he could why a certain duty should be imposed upon the 
class of goods manufactured by his client, but certainly he could not employ the 
attorney upon a contingent fee. In our view the present case falls within this class. 

It may be urged by the plaintiff that judgment can not be rendered against him upon 
his own motion because the proceedings under the seventy-third rule are merely col¬ 
lateral and are to determine whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to summary judg¬ 
ment. In answer thereto it must be said that the contract in question is illegal. The 
plaintiff by his motion refers not only to his own declaration, but also to his affdavit 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


53 


in support thereof. As soon as the court perceives the illegal nature of the contract 
it is in duty bound to dismiss the suit. The plaintiff by his own affidavit puts himself 
out of court—by his own solemn oath in laying the contract before the eyes of the 
court. It seems unnecessary to cite authorities in support of such a proposition, but 
in the case of Oscanyan v. Arms Co. (103 U. S., 261) an officer of the Turkish Govern¬ 
ment was employed on a commission by an American corporation to sell its products 
to the Turkish Government through his influence with its officials. The nature of 
the contract appeared upon the opening statement of the plaintiff’s counsel to the 
jury, and the court at once directed a verdict for the defendant. Of that action the 
Supreme Court says: 

“So in a civil action, if it should appear from the opening statement that it is brought 
to obtain compensation for acts which the law denounces as corrupt and immoral or 
declares to be criminal * * * the court would not hesitate to close the case with¬ 
out delay.” 

Later on, in the same case, the court says: 

“Here the action is upon a contract which, according to the view.of the judge who 
tried the case, was a corrupt one, forbidden by morality and public policy. * * * 
Assuming for the present that such was a sound view, the objection to a recovery could 
not be obviated or waived by any system of pleading, or even by the express stipu¬ 
lation of the parties. It was one which the court itself was bound to raise in the 
interest of the due administration of justice.” 

In the case of Coppell v. Hall (7 Wall., 542) a suit was brought upon a contract 
whereby the plaintiff, a neutral, had agreed with the defendant, a citizen of one of the 
belligerents, to protect with his neutral name shipments made by the defendant into 
the other belligerent State, where trade between citizens of the belligerents was for¬ 
bidden. In reversing a judgment given in favor of the plaintiff after a waiver by the 
defendant of the point of illegality, the court said: 

“Whenever the illegality appears, whether the evidence comes from one side or 
the other, the disclosure is fatal to the case. No consent of the defendant can neutral¬ 
ize its effect.” 

In thus rendering judgment in favor of the defendant, on the motion of the plaintiff 
under the seventy-third rule, we are not departing from the decisions of the court of 
appeals in regard to cases arising under said rule, for those decisions were not rendered 
in cases in which the contract sued upon was illegal from its inception: Lawrence v. 
Hammond (4 D. C. Ap., 467, 473-474; 22 Wash. Law. Rep., 749), Bailey v. D. CL 
(4 D. C. Ap., 356, 370; 22 Wash. Law Rep., 735), Booth v. Arnold (27 Ap. D. C., 287, 
291; 34 Wash. Law Rep., 289), Thompson v. Custis (35 D. C. Ap., 247, 250.). In fact, 
the same court said in Brown v. D. C. (29 Ap. D. C., 273, 281; 35 Wash. Law Rep., 
2.63) : 

“The opening statement * * * admitted a fact that discharged all possible 
right of recovery in the action. It was in the interest, therefore, of the speedy admin¬ 
istration of justice to act upon the admission when deliberately made and avoid 
the delay that would be caused by the production of the evidence.’’ 

It is unnecessary to pursue the subject further. The plaintiff stating that he can 
not amend, judgment must be rendered for the defendant. “In pari delicto potior 
est conditio defendentis.” 

Senator Thompson. You say that fee was $5,500 ? 

Mr. Wilson. $5,000 was the fee. There was $500 retainer and 
$5,000 contingent upon getting the transfer. 

Senator Thompson. Mr. Columbus sued Mr. Sheehy ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. For $2,500, one-half of the contingent fee? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. Well, he sued him for one-half of $2,500, 
which Sheehy had collected; $2,500 had not been collected. 

Senator Thompson. Was there a written contract for $5,500? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, Senator; a written contract. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sheehy had been a member of the excise 
board, had he not ? 

Mr. Wilson. He had been chairman of the excise board. 

The Chairman. He resigned from the excise board and became 
an attorney for those desiring licenses from the board ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; and appeared frequently before the board, 
and has been very active on behalf of the liquor interests since his 
resignation took effect. 


54 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

The Chairman. Give us what further information you may have* 

Mr. Wilson. In attempting to say what we thought was a decided 
tendency to favor the liquor interests, I took the liberty, on October 
26, 1914, of writing the excise board a letter calling their attention 
to some of the criticisms that were being circulated concerning them, 
and I have a copy of that letter here. 

The Chairman. Does that letter state what are purported to be 
facts or mere reports ? 

Mr. Wilson. Some of them are facts; and then, at the end, I took 
the liberty of giving the rules of construction from a number of cases, 
which ought to have been applicable to the construction of this law. 

The Chairman. Have you a copy of that letter—an extra copy? 

Mr. Wilson. I have not an extra copy. 

The Chairman. Does it throw any light On violations of the law ? 

Mr. Wilson. It calls attention again to violations. It calls atten¬ 
tion to the case of Mr. Raftery. 

The Chairman. Go ahead with your statement and bring up what¬ 
ever cases you have not referred to before, and you can refer to that 
letter as a basis for any cases that are referred to in it. 

Mr. Wilson. I asked them how they could explain why Thomas 
Raftery was permitted a transfer after the evidence produced before 
them showed that he had, in fact, paid for the destruction of protests, 
when the law required them to consider protests. I said [reading]: 

What comment can we make upon the statement made by a member of the board 
immediately after that evidence was produced in the Raftery case to the effect, “Now 
that you have the evidence, what does it amount to? It amounts to nothing.” 

The Chairman. To what member of the board did you have 
reference ? 

Mr. Wilson. Henry S. Baker. 

The Chairman. Did you hear him make that statement? 

Mr. Wilson. I did not. May I state to whom it was made and 
my authority for it ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. Albert E. Shoemaker, the attorney for the league. 

The Chairman. Very well. Would you prefer to enlarge on that 
Raftery case now, or is that sufficient reference to it ? 

Mr. Wilson. I think that is sufficient reference to it. You will get 
the record in the case, and their own record will show those facts. 

I also referred to the Ebbitt House case, where certain uncon¬ 
tradicted testimony was given which showed a §tate of affairs shock¬ 
ing to the moral sense, and said that the chairman of the board stated 
in substance what another member said in the Raftery case, “Now, 
that you have the evidence, what does it amount to? We will not 
consider it,” or something to that effect. 

The Chairman. To what testimony do you refer ? 

Mr. Wilson. I refer to the testimony of- 

The Chairman. Wood? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, of Thomas Wood; I think his name is Thomas 
Wood. 

The Chairman. Taken in what proceeding? 

Mr. Wilson. Taken in the hearing in regard to the Ebbitt House 
case, as to whether or not a license should be granted in that case. 

The Chairman. At what time ? 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 55 

Mr. Wilson. Before the issuance of the licenses this year. It 
probably was in October. 

The Chairman. 1914? 

Mr. Wilson. 1914. 

The Chairman. You were protesting on behalf of the Anti-Saloon 
League against the renewal of a license for the Ebbitt House ? 

Mr. Wilson. That was the attitude of the Anti-Saloon League, and 
we were protesting on that ground. Hearing was had. Mr. Wood 
had been employed at the Ebbitt House. I have seen him there 
often myself, and he testified concerning the furnishing of liquors to 
girls, and certain things which he had seen there. 

The Chairman. Where can we find that testimony? 

Mr. Wilson. The records of the excise board in the Ebbitt House 
case will show it if the testimony was written up. It was taken in 
shorthand, as I understand, at the time. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Wilson. Nothing further need be said about that, but when 
the chairman of the board said m substance that no consideration 
would be given to this testimony, Mr. Baker said “Amen! Amen!” 

The Chairman. Did you hear that or was that said before Mr. 
Shoemaker ? 

Mr. Wilson. No, sir; Mr. Shoemaker. 

The Chairman. Well, we will get Mr. Shoemaker on the stand a 
little later. 

Mr. Wilson. But this is what I put in the letter to them. 

The Chairman. Mr. Shoemaker, in his capacity as attorney for the 
Anti-Saloon League, of which you are president, had told you about 
these remarks of a member of the excise board ? 

Mr. Wilson. He did, and I wrote them concerning it. This letter 
I understand is going in evidence. 

The Chairman. Have your their reply ? 

Mr. Wilson. There was no reply to this letter. 

The Chairman. You say there was no reply? 

Mr. Wilson. There was no reply to this letter. 

The Chairman. What are the points in that letter, Mr. Wilson, 
that you consider of special importance? You may indicate them 
briefly. 

Mr. Wilson. I called their attention, after referring to the case at 
the Evans Building, to the fact that there were many other stories 
of large fees, in some instances much larger than in the Evans Building 
case, and in which the insinuations were quite as unpleasant. Then 
I asked them “Upon what theory can we explain the open bar at 
407 Q Street NW., where no license was in existence from March 15, 
1914, to June 27, 1914?” 

Then I asked them [reading]: 

‘«How can we explain the apparent attitude that the shortest course of travel is 
not the most direct route across a public right of way.” 

Then I called their attention also to the fact that [reading]: 

“ in one instance it is reliably reported the board took the attitude that Congress 
had inadventently omitted to state that clubs could be licensed in residental dis¬ 
tricts, and that the board would supply the omission.” 

The Chairman. I understand they do take that position ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; they practically have it in that letter; but they 
made the public statement as well as in writing. 


56 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Thompson. There are a number of clubs in residential dis¬ 
tricts, are there not ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; quite a number of them. 

Then I called their attention to an expression of Senator Jones; not 
*>y name, but I said: (reading) 

“You had before you an expression of the view of a man whose name the law 
bears as to the intention of Congress on the question of fire limits in the western 
section of the city. The ruling was in favor of the liquor interests. There is no 
law to compel you to grant any license in that disputed zone.” 

The Chairman. Now, state briefly what the western zone case is. 

Mr. Wilson. There are a number of saloons on M Street in George¬ 
town. There are two particularly bad ones, from our viewpoint, 
west from Thirty-fifth Street. The putting in of this amendment 
was for the purpose, primarily, of cutting out those saloons, and one 
at Tennallytown. At the time the law was passed Thirty-fifth Street 
was the western limit on M Street. Shortly after the passage of the 
law an application was made by certain interested parties to get the 
fire limits extended to Thirty-seventh Street, and the then Commis¬ 
sioners of the District of Columbia extended the fire limits to Thirty- 
seventh Street, and the board held that it was proper for them to 
license these two places. 

The Chairman. Did you protest against these licenses ? 

Mr. Wilson. We did. 

The Chairman. And you recited the fact that at the time this 
law was enacted, Thirty-fifth Street was the western fire limit ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, we did. 

The Chairman. And the law provided that no saloons should be 
licensed west of that limit ? 

Mr. Wilson. West of the fire limit ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. They held that the act did not go into effect until 
July 1, and that the fire limit was Thirty-seventh Street, July 1, and 
that the law contemplated the fire limit at Thirty-seventh Street, 
and granted the licenses. 

The Chairman. Evidently contrary to the intention of the Jones- 
Works excise law. 

Mr. Wilson. Before that action was taken they had a letter from 
Senator Jones which had been written to Mr. Shoemaker, and which 
I saw and know was transmitted to them, as to his views of the matter. 

I further called their attention to this fact [reading]: 

“ The authors of the law are grieviously disappointed because the inspector pro¬ 
vided by law has not inspected saloons in the sense in which saloons should be in¬ 
spected. For this the inspector is not responsible.” 

Then I quoted the rules of construction, briefly in the letter. 

(The letter above referred to is here printed in full, as follows:) 

October 26,1914. 

"She honorable the Excise Board, 

Washington , D. C. 

Gentlemen: One of the grave questions confronting us in relation to excise matters 
in this District is how to justify what has been done when called upon so to do by 
legally constituted authority or by the citizens of the District of Columbia responsible 
for the Jones-Works law. In some instances it is respectfully submitted that some 
of us, though in close touch with the situation and presumed to know, are unable to 
commend what has been done. 

Let me illustrate: 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


57 


How can we explain why Thomas Raftery was permitted to transfer after the evi¬ 
dence produced before you showed that he had in fact paid for the destruction of 
protests when the law requires you to consider protests? What comment can we 
make upon the statement made by a member of the board immediately after that 
evidence was produced in the Raftery case to the effect “now that you have the 
evidence, what does it amount to? It amounts to nothing.” 

After the hearing in the Ebbitt House case, where certain uncontradicted testimony 
showed a state of affairs shocking to the moral sense, it is said the chairman of your 
board stated in substance what another member said in the Raftery -case and further 
indicated that such testimony would be given no consideration to which statement 
by the chairman Mr. Baker said, “Amen! Amen!” Are these expressions given at 
the very time by a majority of the board to be taken as the moral standard of such 
officials? What other conclusion is possible? If such is the moral standard, what 
have the various cooperating forces responsible for the enactment of this law to hope 
for in its administration? 

The Evans Building case will not down. A prominent citizen who might in some 
contingencies have occasion to deal officially upon certain phases of it in referring to 
the attorney’s fee in that case said “The human mind can reach but one conclusion.” 
A prominent lawyer not identified in any way with the Anti-Saloon League spoke to 
me of excise conditions and referred to them as being a public scandal. He did not 
specify the particulars and was not asked for them. In this same case an eminent 
jurist said “It was a great mistake to permit that place to have a license.” Another 
eminent jurist here said to me “It is the utmost folly for the United States to permit 
saloons to exist.” Numerous nonofficial citizens have expressed their views in strong 
terms in this case. There is not the least doubt the board could have avoided all this 
comment by refusing the transfer. The applicant’s attitude may be easily surmised. 
He certainly would not have agreed to pay what he did unless he thought he would 
get his money’s worth. An attorney for the liquor interests recently stated in my 
office that the attorneys in that case had often done more work for $10 than they did 
in that case. Then why such fees? Before the transfer was granted I wrote to you 
and asked that you investigate. You replied, but you did not investigate and you did 
grant the transfer. 

There are may other stories of large fees, in some instances much larger than the 
Evans Building case, and the insinuations are quite as unpleasant. 

Upon what theory can we explain the open bar at 407 0 Street, northwest, where no 
license was in existence from March 15, 1914, to June 27,1914? 

Now, how can we explain the apparent attitude that the shortest course of travel 
is not the most direct route across a public right of way? In the opinion of many a 
contrary holding would not only be unjustifiable in law, but must subject the board 
to criticism which could be avoided by the bo^rd. A contrary holding in my opinion 
would be a violation of the act which you have sworn to support. _ 

In one instance, it is reliably reported the board took the attitude that Congress 
had inadvertently omitted to state that clubs could be licensed in residential districts 
and that the board would supply the omission. 

You had before you an expression of the view of a man whose name the law bears 
as to the intention of Congress on the question of fire limits in the western section of 
the city. The ruling was in favor of the liquor interest. There is no law to compel 
you to grant anv license in that disputed zone. 

The authors of the law are grievously disappointed because the inspector provided 
by law has not inspected saloons in the sense in which saloons should be inspected. 
For this the inspector is not responsible. 

We have to deal with a traffic whose attributes are so well known that characteriza¬ 
tion is useless. Certain evidences have been presented to you. It has been powerful 
enough to secure the removal of police officers who were not desired, and has per¬ 
sistently violated the law. ' ' . , 

Upon one occasion in a statement before the board I took the liberty of quoting from 
certain eminent authorities named by me only to be told a few hours afterwards that a 
member of the board stated that I certainly did not believe what I had said in that 
statement. Notwithstanding that experience, I am now going to ask your indulgence 
while I quote from legal authorities on the rules of construction. I do this because 
of the importance of the matters before you and because when excise affairs in this 
District are sifted to the bottom by competent authority, as now seems probable, it 
may not be said that the rules of statutory construction were not presented to you. 

In Heydon’s case, 3 Rep., it is stated that it was resolved by the barons of the 

exchequer as follows: . , „ j j , 

“For the sure and true interpretation of all statutes m general, be they penal or 
beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law, four things are to be discerned 

and considered: ’ , , . 

“First. What was the common law before the making of the act. 


58 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


“Second. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not 
provide. 

“Third. What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the 
disease of the commonwealth. 

“Fourth. The true reason of the remedy * * *.” 

In construing a statute, the courts may recur to the history of the times when it 
was passed, in order to ascertain the reason for its passage, as well as the meaning of its 
provisions. (U. S. v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 91 U. S., 72.) 

In Platt v. Union Pacific Railroad (99 U. S., 48, 64) it was said: “But in endeavoring 
to ascertain what the Congress of 1862 intended, we must, as far as possible, place 
ourselves in the light that Congress enjoyed, look at things as they appeared to it, 
and discover its purpose from the language used in connection with the attending 
circumstances * * 

In Siemens v. Sellers (123 U. S., 276, 285) the court said: “No doubt, the words 
of the law are generally to have a controlling effect upon its construction; but the 
interpretation of those words is often to be sought from the surrounding circumstances 
and preceding history.” 

In the case of the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (143 U. S., 457-^163) 
Mr. Justice Brewer in delivering the opinion said: “Again, another guide to the 
meaning of a statute is found in the evil which it is designed to remedy; and for this 
the court properly looks at contemporaneous events, the situation as it existed, and 
as it was pressed upon the attention of the legislative body. * * * It appear 
also from the petitions, and in the testimony presented before the committees of 
Congress.” 

Sincerely, yours, Andrew Wilson. 


The Chairman. Very well. What other cases have come within 
your knowledge? Will you discuss the alley cases? Do you know 
anything about them, about the saloons that are located within 300 
feet of disreputable alleys ? 

Mr. Wilson. There are quite a number of them; I do not know 
how many and I have not discussed that with the board, except with 
one member of the board, and that was Mr. Bride. I discussed that 
at the time of the Frank Hall case, and also on one or two other 
occasions when I met him on the street. 


The Chairman. Do you know anything personally about condi¬ 
tions in Jackson Alley? 

Mr. Wilson. I do not. 

The Chairman. Or in Wylie Court NE. ? 

Mr. Wilson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Or in Snow Court ? 


Mr. Wilson. I have no personal knowledge. 

The Chairman. Do you know of your own personal knowledge as 
to whether or not there has been an evasion of the law as to wholesale 
liquor houses ? 

Mr. Wilson. I know that wholesale liquor houses have been 
licensed in resident districts which, according to my information, 
are in violation of the law. One of them has been licensed next door, 
or practically next door, to a house that I own in a residence section. 
The place is on Fourth Street, just where New Jersey Avenue cuts 
into it, northwest. On October 21, 1914, I wrote this letter in regard 
to this place [reading]: 


. , , , „ _ October 21, 1914. 

The honorable the Excise Board, 

District Building , Washington, D. C. 

Gentlemen: There is a wholesale place kept by L. J. Cohen at 1400 Fourth Street 
NW. It so happens that Fourth Street is merged into New Jersey Avenue at this 
point. The house and lot next to the building in which this wholesale place is kept 
is numbered 1410 New Jersey Avenue NW. I happen to be the owner of the last- 
mentioned property and protest against the issuance of a wholesale license to said 
Cohen or any other person at said place. I am informed by persons who live in the 


EXCISE BOARD OE THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. 59 

community that much liquor ia sold to women at this place and that it is altogether 
an undesirable resort for rough people. 

Very truly, yours, Andrew Wilson. 

That place is still open. 

Senator Thompson. What reply did they m'ake to that ? 

Mr. Wilson. None. 

Senator Thompson. What is the date ? 

Mr. Wilson. October 21, 1914. 

The Chairman. What do you know about evasions of the law 
with reference to saloons on one side of a business block ? 

Mr. Wilson. I know of one instance which, in my opinion, is an 
evasion of the law, and that is on the north side of E Street, between 
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Streets NW., where I believe there were 
five barrooms prior to the 1st of November of last year. 

The Chairman. Can you state the names of those five? 

Mr. Wilson. I can name some of them. There was Shoomaker’s, 
Gerstenberg’s, Bush, Miller, and Engel. 

The Chairman. What happened with reference to those five saloons 
when this law went into effect ? Do I understand you to say the five 
saloons were there on one side of that block after this law had gone 
into effect ? 

Mr. Wilson. Prior to November 1, 1914. The holding of the 
excise board was that the law did not force these places out until after 
November 1, 1914. 

The Chairman. On November 1 , 1914, what happened to these 
five saloons? 

Mr. Wilson. Bush went out of business. Miller Bros, failed to 
get a license. My recollection is that there were 297 licenses issued. 
Miller Bros, applied for one of the licenses, changed the opening of 
that place from Pennsylvania Avenue, or E Street and Pennsylvania 
Avenue, fronting practically on both at that point, to Fourteenth 
Street, just around the corner, and the entrance is there now and the 
license was granted by the excise board. In my opinion that is a 
clear evasion of the law, and in my opinion, to-day Miller Bros, are 
violating the law in selling without a license that is valid. 

The Chairman. The entrance is now just around the corner on 
Fourteenth Street ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. The drinking is just where it was before ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

The Chairman. The body of the saloon is just exactly where it 
was before ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; without any rearrangement so far as I know, 
except as to the entrance. 

Senator Thompson. Is the barroom in the same place, and are the 
bottles in the same places ? 

Mr. Wilson. I really could not say as to the bar. I have not 
been inside the place. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to hear anything else you have. 

Mr. Wilson. I had another conversation with another member 
of the excise board in regard to lewd pictures in the barrooms. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. A rule of the board prohibits lewd pictures in bar¬ 
rooms. Mr. Cotter T. Bride told me that upon their tour of inspec¬ 
tion of the excise board they went into the St. James Hotel, and there 


60 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


was a figure of a nude woman, a picture on the side of the wall, and 
that he told the proprietor there that that was no place for that pic¬ 
ture, and it must be draped. He told me that he had gone back 
afterwards, and that it had been draped, but that it had been draped 
in such a way that it was more suggestive than it was before—so 
draped that certain parts of the figure were exposed that made it 
even more suggestive. On my way up here to-day, at 3.45 o’clock, 
Mr. Shoemaker and I entered that barroom for the purpose of looking 
at that picture to see whether it was there or not, and we found the 
picture there, and it is draped. It is on the east wall of the barroom, 
and at the center of the picture there is a space approximately 5 or 
6 inches wide which is not draped, and over which there was no 
cloth hanging. There is a door just to the north of where this picture 
stands out into what was probably at one time a stairway, and upon 
that is a picture of a nude woman, or of a mermaid. The lower 
limbs appear to become a part of a fish before the lower part of the 
limbs is reached. 

The Chairman. Those pictures are suggestive and obscene? 

Mr. Wilson. They are. 

The Chairman. They are there.to-day ? 

Mr. Wilson. They were there to-day at a quarter of 4 o’clock. 

The Chairman. Very well. Have you anything else that you 
think would be of interest or assistance ? 

Senator Thompson. What do you know of the evasion of the law 
relative to saloons being nearer schoolhouses or places of public 
worship than the excise law provides ? 

Mr. Wilson. I think there are many violations of the law, because 
they have used wrong measurements, wrong methods of measure¬ 
ments; and where wrong measurements have not been used in 
some instances I think that there is a plain violation. I think 
there is a violation in the Eastern High School case. I think there 
is a violation—I am absolutely certain of it—in the case of Mr. 
Schriner’s place and the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church. 
Costello’s place down at Sixth and G Streets is immediately across 
the street from a Jewish synagogue. To be sure there is a bicycle 
place under it, but I think that is a violation of the law. I think, 
likewise, the Central Union Mission is a house of religious worship, 
and there are one or two saloons within 400 feet of that. I am 
informed that it was held by the board—I can not say certainly 
that they so held—that that is not a house of religious worship in 
the sense in which they construe the excise law. 

Senator Thompson. They claim that it must be a church edifice 
and used exclusively for that purpose? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; I understand that is their construction of the law. 

Senator Thompson. And the same way with schools ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; I think so. There is a case at First and F 
Streets SW., in which there is a building that is used for public wor¬ 
ship that is within about 100 feet of a saloon. I do not recall the 
name now. Mr. Shoemaker will probably know about that. There 
is a case where a man purchased property and expended large sums 
of money before he could have legitimately known that he was going 
to get a transfer of a license. There are numerous cases of that kind, 
which, if investigated, will be disclosed. 

The Chairman. What do you know about the Anacostia case ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTEICT OF COLUMBIA. 61 

Mr. Wilson. I know that the licenses were handed out on the 
morning of October 31, 1914. I happened to be there at the time 
when they were handed out, or when the announcements were made, 
rather. The court record of November 4 showed that there had 
been certain trusts given on certain property in Anacostia. The 
people in Anacostia cooperating with the Anti-Saloon League had 
protested vigorously against any saloons being located in that 
vicinity. Upon an examination of the record, liber 3746, folio 241, 
of the land records of the District of Columbia, I found a deed of trust 
from Thomas J. and Annie L. Leonard to Frank E. Elder and Stanley 
D. Willis, dated October 31, 1914, recorded November 3, 1914, in the 
liber and folio which I have mentioned, to secure Julius Maxman 
$7,218.85, 20 notes monthly of $350 each, falling due in from 1 to 20 
months, and then a note for $218.85 due in 21 months after the date. 
This was secured on lot 12 and part of lot 11 in square 5769. I think 
it was formerly No. 45 Harrison Street, and it is now known as No. 
1245 Good Hope Road, by the number. On the same day the 
same parties to the same trustees gave a chattel trust on the liquor 
business at said place, and that chattel trust is recorded in liber 3746, 
folio 244, et seq. I do not know anything about what was done with 
this money. I simply call attention to it, that it attracted my 
attention. 

The Chairman. Is it not a fact that that saloon in Anacostia is 
located in a nonbusiness block? 

Mr. Wilson. I can not say, Mr. Chairman, just what the percentage 
of business is there, nor have I examined recently, and I do not now 
hold in mind just what the situation is in regard to that. 

The Chairman. Is it not a fact that there was an overwhelming pro¬ 
test by the citizens of Anacostia against that location of a saloon there ? 

Mr. Wilson. There was. There were many hundreds of people 
that appeared before the excise board against the granting of that 
license, and they had the protest of a very large number, as their 
records will show. 

The Chairman. I think that covers about all of it ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Very well. You may stand aside for the present. 

(At 6 o'clock p. m. the committee adjourned until to-morrow, 
Wednesday, February 24, 1915, at 10 o'clock a. m.) 




\ 

V* 









SECOND DAY. 


WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1915. 

Special Committee, 

United States Senate, 

Washington , D. C. 

The special committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o’clock 
a. m., in the room of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, 
in the Capitol. 

Present: Senators Sheppard (chairman), Thompson, and Jones. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ANDREW WILSON—(Resumed). 

The Chairman. Mr. Wilson, do you know of any instances where 
two saloons are being run under one license ? 

Mb. Wilson. I so consider the place at 1942-1944 Fourteenth 
Street NW. As I understand, the license application was made by 
O’Hanlon & O’Connor for 1944 Fourteenth Street NW. They at one 
time had two entrances, 1942 and 1944. One of them has been closed 
up. Mr. Cotter T. Bride had told them that they must close one en¬ 
trance; so to-day there is an entrance at the south side of 1942 Four¬ 
teenth Street. Opening the door and entering, the first part of the 
room at 1942 is cut off by swinging screen doors opening into 1942; 
that is, farther in, in 1942. A part of the wall between 1942 and 1944 
has been removed, and in the space, or a part of that space, are two 
swinging screen doors. There is a bar extending along the north side 
of 1942, making a sort of a horseshoe around through this opening 
and extending down on the south side of 1944 Fourteenth Street. At 
a quarter to 9 o’clock this morning there were bartenders on both 
sides, in both places. I transferred there on the street cars and I 
made it my business to go in. I went in and looked over it just a 
moment and went out again. 

Senator Thompson. What are the names of the parties who run 
that place ? 

Mr. Wilson. O’Hanlon and O’Connor are the men who run it. It 
is Patrick O’Hanlon, and I have forgotten Mr. O’Connor’s initials. 

Senator Thompson. Do they conduct that business under one 
license ? 

Mr. Wilson. There is but one license there, as we understand. 

I think that Geyer’s, at 1823-25-27 Fourteenth Street—perhaps 
only two of those numbers, but along about there—on the east side 
of Fourteenth Street, also is conducted at two places. Our interpre¬ 
tation of the law is that they are only entitled to a license at one 
place, if entitled at all. I think, too, that probably Mr. Xander’s 

63 


i 



64 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


place on Seventh Street has a wholesale bar and a retail bar. Mr. 
Shoemaker knows more about that than I do. They are right adjoin¬ 
ing each other. He probably has two licenses, however. 

I wish to state, if I may, in relation to yesterday’s statement, that 
I deem section 7 of the rule, or rule 7, to be entirely without warrant 
of law. There is an attempted segregation here of wholesale licenses 
into classes, where the law makes but one kind of wholesale licenses. 
It says [reading]: 

Beginning November 1, 1914, wholesale licenses (to sell intoxicating liquors in 
quantities of 5 gallons and over) shall not be granted on any side of a street where less 
than 50 per cent of the foot frontage between intersecting streets, etc. 

I think the part included in parenthesis there is wholly uncalled 
for, and makes a division of wholesale licenses entirely beyond the 
power of the board to make. 

Senator Jones. Do you know of any basis for that 5-gallon limita¬ 
tion they put in there ? 

Mr. Wilson. No, sir; there is none. 

Senator Jones. Did you ever hear them give any reason for that ? 

Mr. Wilson. I did not. The only imaginable excuse I can see is 
that they desired some means of giving wholesale licenses in residence 
districts, and hit upon this method to do it. It would have been very 
much better, from our viewpoint, if the right of sale in 5-gallon quan¬ 
tities had been given in residence districts and the other had been 
given in business districts. 

I think also that section 15 of the rules making a distinction as to 
the sealed original package is erroneous. 

Senator Jones. Here is their definition [reading]: 

A “sealed original” package comprehends a package not filled at the time of sale, 
but one carried in stock, whether filled on the premises of the licensee or elsewhere. 

Mr. Wilson. My opinion about it is that a sealed original package 
would be a package that was sealed when it came into the possession 
of the dealer, the licensee, and that it is not one which is sealed bv 
him. 

Senator Jones. About the sealed packages, have you any informa¬ 
tion about how that trade is carried on at any of these so-called 
wholesale places ? 

Mr. Wilson. Not at this time, Senator. There was a time when, 
as a matter of general repute, it was carried on in jars such as our 
housewives use m sealing up fruit; Mason jars. 

Senator Jones. You say it was carried on in that way? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. They would take the jars and fill them with 
beer and screw the tops down; and they considered that to be a sealed 
package. 

Senator Jones. In other words, a person would take the jar in there 
with them, and it would be filled there, and the top screwed on, and 
that was called a sealed package, and they were allowed to take it 
away? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. That is in wholesale places ? 

Senator Jones. That is in wholesale places, as I understand it. 

Mr. Wilson. I believe they did that in the wholesale places, too; 
and I think that that was the way they attempted to get around it, 
in selling in that way; but I think that really took the place of the 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


65 


growler trade in the retail place when they abolished the growler, 
so called. 

Senator Jones. You have no personal knowledge of it? 

Mr. Wilson. I have no personal knowledge, however. 

The Chairman. Do you lmow as to whether paragraph 16 requiring 
“that no license, either wholesale or barroom, shall be issued to any 
person or for any place located within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a 
marine barracks, the War College, and Engineer Barracks, or of the 
navy yard, in the District of Columbia/' has been violated? 

Mr. Wilson. I do not. 

The Chairman. Do you know one John J. Madden? 

Mr. Wilson. I do not except by reputation. 

The Chairman. Do you know Thad. B. Sargeant ? 

Mr. Wilson. I do. 

The Chairman. Who is he? 

Mr. Wilson. Well, Thad. B. Sargeant is, or has been for a number 
of years, a real estate operator in Washington. 

The Chairman. Have you had any conversation with Mr. Thad. B. 
Sargeant regarding this license matter? 

Mr. Wilson. I have, on two or three occasions. He came to my 
office in the Evans Building and expressed his appreciation of the 
efficient work that the Anti-Saloon League had done in keeping 
Mr. Madden, who was his client, from getting a transfer of license 
to Fourteenth Street, and then to a place near the Eckington Pres¬ 
byterian Church, and then to a place on B Street near the Center 
Market, and later he called at my office in the Woodward Building. 
I might say that I left the Evans Building on August 19, 1914, the 
day that the bar was opened in the Evans Building. Mr. Sargeant 
came to my office in the Woodward Building and talked about an¬ 
other matter for a moment, and then he began talking about the 
excise board. He stated that at first he believed that the excise 
board was a straightforward and honest board, but he said that he 
had been compelled to change his mind, and I said to him, “Mr. 
Sargent, what is the matter now?" “Well," he said, “you know I 
represented Madden, and that you beat us out in three places." I 
said, “Yes." He said, “Well, I met him a day or two ago, and I 
said to him ‘You got your license transferred out on Four-and-a-half 
Street.' He said, ‘Yes.'" 

The Chairman. Mr. Wilson, you mean that he said he represented 
Madden in three attempts to get a license to run a saloon ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

The Chairman. In each one of those attempts that he made for 
Madden the Anti-Saloon League was Successful in resisting him ? 

Mr. Wilson. In defeating him, yes. 

The Chairman. For transfer of license ? 

Mr. Wilson. Transfer of license. 

The Chairman. Go ahead. 

Mr. Wilson. Then he said to Mr. Madden, “Why did you not let 
me represent you this time when you got your transfer?" He said, 
“I have done all this work for you for nothing, now, and then you 
get your transfer and I am left out." Mr. Madden, so Mr. Sargeant 
told me, replied “Oh, you don't know how. You don’t understand. 
It takes money to do this thing, and you don't know how to do it." 


66 


EXCISE BOAED OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Then Mr. Sargeant said he said to Mr. Madden, “ You don’t mean to 
say that you had to buy the excise board?” And Mr. Madden’s 
reply was, as Mr. Sargeant related it to me, “Sure; what else could I 
mean?” 

The Chairman. Mr. Madden finally succeeded in securing a 
transfer ? 

Mr. Wilson. He did, and he was represented by Mr. Joseph C. 
Sheehy when he got his transfer. 

Senator Jones. A former member of the board? 

Mr. Wilson. Former chairman of the board; a man, I regret to 
say, who might not have gotten there if other steps had been taken 
which might have been taken in 1913. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else, Mr. Wilson ? 

Mr. Wilson. I think of nothing further unless your honorable 
committee desire to ask some further questions. 

The Chairman. Do you know why Mr. Sheehy resigned ? 

Mr. Wilson. Only this. Mr. Sheehy said to me that he resigned 
because he had to make a living for himself and provide for his babies 
for the future; that there was not money enough on the excise board 
for him. 

The Chairman. Do you know the salaries of the board ? 

Mr. Wilson. I do; $2,400 a year each. 

The Chairman. The chairman gets no more than the other two 
members ? 

Mr. Wilson. No more. 

The Chairman. That will do for the present, Mr. Wilson. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ALBERT E. SHOEMAKER. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. State your full name. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Albert- E. Shoemaker. 

The Chairman. And your profession? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Lawyer. 

The Chairman. What is your position, if any, in connection with 
the Anti-Saloon League? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I am attorney for the Anti-Saloon League of 
the District of Columbia. 

The Chairman. What is your business address and your home 
address ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. My business address is the Woodward Building, 
Fifteenth and H Streets, and my home address is Friendship Heights, 
Md. * 

The Chairman. How long have you been a resident of the District 
of Columbia? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I am not an actual resident now, Senator. I am 
living just over the District line in Montgomery County, Md. 

The Chairman. For all practical purposes, however- 

Mr. Shoemaker. My whole life has been spent in the District of 
Columbia, practically. 

The Chairman. Your whole life has been spent in the District of 
Columbia ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; my education was received in this city and 
I have been in business here for 23 years. I have lived here a part 
of that time. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 67 

The Chairman. How long have you been in the law practice here? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Since 1892. 

The Chairman. As attorney for the Anti-Saloon League, what 
occasion have you had to know of the workings of the excise board? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have been attorney for the Anti-Saloon League 
for a little more than 20 years, and as such attorney I have been in 
constant touch with the work of the excise boards from that time 
until this time. I have represented the Anti-Saloon League and 
protestants at practically all hearings on applications for licenses, 
either transfers and renewals of licenses. 

The Chairman. Have hearings been held on practically all trans¬ 
fers and licenses that have been granted ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Hearings were granted on practically all ap¬ 
plications for transfers of licenses under this new law, and hearings 
were granted on nearly all applications for renewals of licenses as 
well. 

The Chairman. Was extensive testimony taken in these hearings 
as a rule ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; as a rule, in connection with the transfer 
of licenses, of which there were a great many. During the fall of 
1913, directly after the law went into effect, there were a great many 
transfers. 

The Chairman. At these hearings, in the matter of transfers and 
applications for original license, were the applicants generally repre¬ 
sented by attorneys? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Generally; yes, sir. In a few cases they were not 
represented by attorneys. 

The Chairman. What attorneys are most prominent in the busi¬ 
ness of representing applicants for license and transfers ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Mr. Alexander H. Bell, Mr. Michael J. Keane, 
Mr. R. L. Montague, and Mr. Joseph C. Sheehy. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sheehy is the man who was chairman of the 
present board when it was first organized under the new law ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; he was the first chairman of the new board 
and he served until, I think, in April. 

The Chairman. Had he been in this business of representing appli¬ 
cants for licenses and transfers before he was chairman of the board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. He had not been. I had never met him or seen 
him prior to his becoming a member of the board itself. 

The Chairman. And you had been constantly at hearings before 
old boards ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Constantly appearing; yes. 

The Chairman. For many years ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. So far as I know, he had never appeared 
in a case before. 

The Chairman. How long did he serve as chairman of the board 

Mr. Shoemaker. He served from September 4, when he took the 
oath of office. 

Senator Thompson. Of what year ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. 1913. He served until some time in April, 1914. 

The Chairman. He then resigned and became- 

Mr. Shoemaker. He resigned, and soon afterwards became a 
practitioner before the excise board. His first case I recall was the 
Madden case, referred to by Mr. Wilson. 

84513*—S. Doc. 981, 83-3— -8 


68 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. In connection with one case he was sued for a 
division of fees, was he not ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; he was sued in connection with fees paid by 
Denis J. McCarthy, who applied for a transfer of license to the Evans 
Building, 1424 New York Avenue. I may say that Mr. Sheehy had 
his office in that building, a3 I had mine. 

The Chairman. He had his office in the Evans Building ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; he had his office in the Evans Building. 
I had mine, and Mr. Wilson had his, in the same building. Mr. Sheehy, 
when a member of the board, appeared always to be opposed to a 
grant of a license for a barroom in that building. He talked to me 
about it some time prior, when there were rumors of applications. 
On one occasion, just shortly before his resignation, we met in leaving 
the building for the District Building, and he remarked to me about 
these rumors of applications for license in the Evans Building, and 
he said, “ Shoemaker, if they do make application in this building, I 
should like to exchange places with you.” I told him that I would 
be very glad to exchange places with him. 

The Chairman. He meaning, evidently, that he wished to be an 
attorney to resist it ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; he was so much opposed to it that he would 
like to have me preside in his place, and he appear in opposition to it, 
as I understood him. 

The Chairman. The evidence in that case showed the amount of 
the fee that he was to get, did it not ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The suit came on some time after the license was 
granted, over a dispute between two attorneys. 

The Chairman. Who were they? 

Mr. Shoemaker. They were Mr. Columbus—I have forgotten his 
initials. 

The Chairman. W. F. ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. W. F. Columbus. Mr. Columbus had repre¬ 
sented Mr. McCarthy, who had a license on Fourteenth Street SW. 
near the Bureau of Printing and Engraving. 

The Chairman. You say that he had represented him ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. In respect to what ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The transfer of his license. Mr. McCarthy was 
so sure that he could not continue after the 1st of November," 1914, 
that he sought to transfer his license. 

The Chairman. And he employed Mr. Columbus ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; he employed Mr. Columbus, and I think 
he made possibly three efforts to transfer his license. 

The Chairman. Was that while Mr. Sheehy was chairman of the 
board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. He made two or three efforts to transfer to the 
Evans Building ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Not to the Evans Building, but elsewhere. He 
made one application, I believe, on upper Fourteenth Street. These 
applications were all refused, and shortly after Sheehy had resigned 
and his resignation had been accepted Mr. McCarthy made an appli¬ 
cation for transfer of his barroom license to the Evans Building. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


69 


The Chairman. Before you leave that point, now, do you know why 
Mr. McCarthy’s applications for transfers were declined while Mr. 
Sheehy was president of the board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not know. There was some opposition to 
them, not strong cases against them at all, but there was some oppo¬ 
sition. I remember the case on Fourteenth Street where there were 
some few protestants. 

Senator Thompson. Had the applications for the transfers to the 
Evans Building been made before he went off the board? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; these were applications for transfers elsewhere 
while he was chairman of the board. The McCarthy application for 
the Evans Building was not made until after he went off the board. 

The Chairman. Yes; all right. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Mr. Columbus sought Mr. Sheehy to assist him, 
and Mr. Sheehy drew up a contract. I talked with Mr. Columbus 
himself about this, and the record also shows the contract provided 
that there should be a retainer of $500 and a fee, contingent upon 
the granting of the transfer of $5,000. 

The Chairman. Was the retainer fee to be divided equally between 
the two ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; it was divided. 

The Chairman. The $5,000 contingent fee was to be divided also ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. It was to be divided equally also under the terms 
of the contract. It appears from the record of a suit of Columbus 
against Sheehy that Mr. Sheehy collected $2,500 of the $5,000, and 
Mr. Columbus claimed one-half of that. Mr. Sheehy refused to pay 
him, and Mr. Columbus brought the suit against him. The suit 
came up before Mr. Justice Stafford, and he threw the case out of 
court on the ground that such fees in liquor cases were contrary to 
public policy and good morals. In connection, as I understand it, 
with that case, Mr. McCarthy placed a large trust on his place of 
business to cover the expenses of his transfer. 

The Chairman. After this suit for part of the fee had been thrown 
out on the ground that is was contrary to public policy and good 
morals, did Mr. Sheehy continue to appear before the excise board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. In many cases ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not just recall when that court decision was 
handed down. 

The Chairman. He has continued, however, to appear before the 
board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Oh, yes; before the board. 

The Chairman. He is an attorney in good standing before the 
excise board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Absolutely. 

Senator Thompson. Do you know anything about why the other 
$2,500 was not paid ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not know, except my understanding was, I 
think from Mr. Columbus, that McCarthy did not have any more 
money to pay at that time, or something of the kind. He tried to 
collect it, but failed. 

The Chairman. You heard the testimony of Mr. Wilson yesterday 
afternoon ? 


70 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I did. 

The Chairman. You heard him testify as to what you had said 
to him as to what members of the board had said to you regarding 
evidence you had adduced in certain cases ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you remember those cases ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Suppose I take up those cases ? 

The Chairman. Go ahead and take up those cases that Mr. Wil¬ 
son referred to. He referred to conversations with you regarding 
them ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Simply as to the conversations, or the whole 
case? 

The Chairman. I want you to corroborate, if you can, what Mr. 
Wilson said. I want to know if you can corroborate him ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The Thomas Raftery case was one of the most 
flagrant that came to my notice. Mr. Raftery had a license in 
the northeast section of the city, located in a strictly residential 
neighborhood, and he sought a transfer to 406 H Street NE. He 
entered into a contract to buy the property, and made application 
for the transfer. Some weeks before the hearing on the application, 
a citizen and business man conducting business at 406 H Street, a 
Mr. Fitzs imm ons, sent to us for assistance, for protest blanks, 
and for instructions as to how to proceed to prevent the license 
from going in. We sent him the protest blanks and the necessary in¬ 
structions, but did not hear from him promptly. No protest had 
been filed. I discovered that the day before the hearing. 

That same day I had information from two sources that the pro¬ 
tests, which had been numerously signed, had been bought and 
destroyed. I had not time to investigate the matter that afternoon, 
and was assured that there were some citizens who would testify 
about the protests. When I attended the hearing next morning there 
was only one citizen living in the immediate neighborhood present. 
Judge Strider who was an owner of property on that block was also 
present. I proved by the citizen present that he had signed a pro¬ 
test, that he saw it a second time, and that more names had been 
added to it, but he knew nothing further about it. Judge Strider had 
not seen the protest. When the applicant himself was on the stand 
he swore that he had never seen or heard of a protest; that, however, 
he had paid to Mr. Fitzsimmons, to whom we had sent the protest 
blanks, $100, with a promise, if the license was granted, of another $100 
for vacating the building when required to do so. Upon that show¬ 
ing I asked the board for a continuance of the case to give us 
time to investigate the charges. The chairman, Mr. Sheehy, per¬ 
emptorily refused a continuance. I insisted, and he continued to 
refuse, and there was no continuance. He did say, however, that 
protests might be filed the next day if they should come in. I did 
not get a chance to go into the matter directly, and a day or two 
afterwards I received a protest, not on the form that we sent out, 
but a protest with a few names, protesting against the transfer of 
that license. That protest I filed promptly, before the board acted 
upon the application and granted the transfer. Later the transferee, 
it was disclosed, was unable to get possession of No. 406 LI Street, to 
which he had been transferred, and the excise board gave a hearing 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


71 


to find out why he had not transferred his license. That was a month 
or more afterwards, and then it was shown that there was some 
trouble between the licensee and the owner of the property. 

A short time after the hearing application was made by Mr. Raf- 
tery for a transfer to No. 420, on the same block, and a hearing was 
granted upon that application, and there was some considerable 
number of protests filed against it. 

At the hearing I objected to proceeding until the board had recon¬ 
sidered and refused the grant of the license to No. 406 H Street. 
The board refused to take such action and went on with the hearing. 
The morning of the hearing Mr. Fitzsimmons, who had secured the 
protests and who, it was alleged, had given them up for a compen¬ 
sation, called me up at my office over the telephone and asked me if 
there was a hearing on the application that day, and I told him yes. 
He said, “I think that I had better come down. I have heard so 
much about this transaction that I think I will be glad to tell my 
story to the excise board,” or words to that effect. I urged him to 
come down, and he did come. We went on with the hearing that 
morning but did not reach him, and the board took a recess until 
the afternoon. 

Mr. Fitzsimmons said to me that he did not think he could return 
that afternoon; that he was busy; being a tailor, he had a number 
of suits to get out, and some of his customers were prominent men, 
and he did not want to disappoint them. I urged him to come, and 
asked the board to tell him to come. The board seemed to hesitate 
to do it, but finally said, “Mr. Fitzsimmons, if Mr. Shoemaker wants 
you to come, come.” 

They manifested no interest, apparently, in having him come. At 
the afternoon session he had not appeared when we wanted him, and 
we went on with the case and got as far as we could without him, and 
then asked for a delay in order that Mr. Fitzsimmons might have time 
to get there, and I had him called up by telephone at his store and 
he said he would come at once. The board said, “We will give you 
10 minutes, and if he does not appear we will go on with the case.” 
Mr. Sheehy, who was then his attorney, together with Mr. Michael J. 
Keane, objected very strenuously to the delay, and objected to hav¬ 
ing his testimony. The 10 minutes expired and the board ordered 
the case to be resumed. I asked for a further delay, and while talking 
about it Mr. Fitzsimmons came in. He was immediately put upon 
the stand and testified in substance to this effect: “I was in business 
as a tailor at 406 H Street and I permitted the notice card to be tacked 
on the building. I thought it over afterwards, and realized that it 
would be a great inconvenience to me and seriously interfere with my 
business, it being in the spring of the year, and I went to my attorney 
and consulted him as to what I should do. My attorney advised me 
to tear the card down, and I tore it down. Mr. Raftery, the appli¬ 
cant, came to me shortly afterwards and made a proposition to me 
that if I would agree to permit the building to be posted and to give 
possession of the building when required and not to protest against 
him, he would give me $100, and in case the license was granted $100 
more.” . . 

The Chairman. Did he also include as consideration the offer of 
destruction of any protests ? 


72 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. I asked Mr. Fitzsimmons if he had the 
protests that he had signed at that time. He formerly testified that he 
had circulated a protest and had gotten it numerously signed, giving 
the names of many of the signers. I asked him if there was any¬ 
thing said about the protest. He said, “Yes, I had the protest with 
me and showed it to Mr. Raftery and asked him what I should do 
with it. I just destroyed it in his presence.” 

The Chairman. Hid he get the $100 at that time? 

Mr. Shoemaker. He got the $100 at or about that time, and he 
got the other $100, I understood him to say, later. I asked him if 
he knew anything further about protests, and he said yes; that a day 
or two afterwards Mr. Raftery again came to him with other protest 
blanks and asked him to circulate them against himself. 

The Chairman. How was that ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That Raftery came to him with other protest 
blanks and asked him, Mr. Fitzsimmons, to circulate these additional 
protests. 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzsimmons testified to that before the 
excise board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. He testified to that before the excise board; 
that Mr. Rafter}^, the applicant, came to him with other protest blanks 
and asked him to circulate them against himself; that is, against 
Raftery. 

The Chairman. Hid he say why ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. He did not say at that time. He said, “I did 
not know just what that meant, and I went down to Mr. M. J. Keane’s 
office and asked him about it, whether I should do it or not, and 
why it should be done, and he said, 'Yes, circulate them in order to 
keep the protest alive’; and I took the protests and did circulate 
them, and I secured quite a number of signatures of property owners 
and residents on the protests and turned them over to Mr. Raftery.” 
That was the testimony of Mr. Fitzsimmons at that hearing in sub¬ 
stance. Mr. Raftery himself, upon cross-examination, in the pres¬ 
ence of Mr. Fitzsimmons admitted that he had heard of the protests 
and had seen the protests, contradicting his testimony given at the 
former hearing when he said that he had never heard of or seen them. 

The Chairman. To what protest did he refer then, the original, 
real protest ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The original protest. 

The Chairman. Hid he admit that he asked Mr. Fitzsimmons to 
circulate this protest afterwards ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. He did not admit that, no. 

The Chairman. Hid he deny it ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; he did not deny it, but he did not admit 
it. I am not sure about that, but he did not deny it, as I recall. 

The Chairman. The record will show that. 

Mr. Shoemaker. The record of the excise board will show that, 
I think. After the argument of the case and the hearing was con¬ 
cluded Mr. Baker called me over to him—Henry S. Baker, a mem¬ 
ber of the excise board—and, much to my surprise said, "Now, that 
you have got this testimony in, what does it amount to ? ” I answered 
him in this way. I said, "Mr. Baker, after this testimony given here 
to-day by Mr. Fitzsimmons, part of it admitted by Mr. Raftery him- 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 73 

self, and after what I have said in my argument, nothing further that 
I can say will enlighten you.” 

The Chairman. This was Mr. Baker, one of the members of the 
excise board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Of the excise board, yes, sir. The license appli¬ 
cation for No. 420 was refused. Remember that the grant for the 
transfer of No. 406 was still in existence, although he was not occu¬ 
pying No. 406, but was running a barroom at his old stand, at Third 
and C Streets NE. I have forgotten the number. 

Shortly after this application for a license at No. 420 was refused, 
Mr. McCarthy took possession of No. 406, and remodeled the build¬ 
ing at apparently large expense, and entered it as a saloonkeeper, 
and the license for that place was renewed for the year beginning 
November 1, 1914. 

The Chairman. They granted Mr. Raftery a transfer to No. 406 ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. After this testimony had developed, the testi¬ 
mony to which you have referred in regard to No. 420 ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Not exactly that, Senator. They had granted 
the transfer to No. 406 in the first instance, and the applicant was 
unable to take possession of the building, having some trouble with 
the owner of the building. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. While that was pending, after he had been granted 
a transfer and before he had taken possession of No. 406, he made 
application for No. 420 H Street. The board taking no further 
action with reference to No. 406, the grant for No. 406 was on the 
records, standing? 

The Chairman. Had you contested the application for No. 406? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Oh, yes. 

The Chairman. On what grounds? 

Mr. Shoemaker. On the ground that it was in a residential section 
of the city, very largely; there were not many protestants there. 
Judge Strider was there, and he protested on the ground of having 
property in the neighborhood; and one other citizen who had signed 
the protest that was destroyed was present. After we found out 
these protests had been destroyed we asked for a continuance, and 
that is where the trouble came. 

The Chairman. Had the protests been destroyed with reference 
to No. 406 also ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The protests that were destroyed were entirely 
with reference to No. 406. 

The Chairman. That was the building in which Fitzsimmons had 
an office? 

Mr. Shoemaker. In which he had a tailor shop. Mr. Thomas 
Raftery had a saloon at the corner of Third and C Streets NE., in a 
residential section. He desired a transfer to No. 406 H Street, and 
made application for that place. Mr. Fitzsimmons, who was the 
tenant in the building, having a tailor shop there, sent for protest 
blanks, and they were furnished him. He circulated those protest 
blanks, but they were not filed prior to the hearing, and the informa¬ 
tion came to us that the protests had been destroyed. At the hear¬ 
ing next day a citizen appeared and swore that he had signed the 


74 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


protest, had seen it the second time, and that others had signed it 
meanwhile, but he knew nothing further about it. The applicant, 
Mr. Raftery, swore that he had not seen or heard of the protest. 
Upon that showing I asked the board for a continuance, to give us 
an opportunity to investigate those charges. The board refused. 

The Chairman. Up to this time, now, nothing had been said about 
No. 420? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Nothing. 

The Chairman. Now go ahead. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Mr. Sheehy was then chairman of the board and 
he refused to grant a continuance, and the license was in a few days 
granted to No. 406; but owing to some trouble between the owner 
of the property and Mr. Raftery—Mr. Raftery was trying to buy the 
property—he was unable to take possession of it; and a month or 
two months, probably, after that, he made an application for No. 
420, and a hearing was granted on that application. 

The Chairman. And it was on that hearing that the further evi¬ 
dence came out as to Raftery’s dealings with Fitzsimmons with 
reference to No. 406? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir; that is it. Is that clear, Senator? 

The Chairman. I think that clears it up. And despite the fact 
that this evidence came out, the board allowed him to retain his 
permission for a transfer to 406 ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. To No. 406. At the hearing on the application 
for No. 420, I had urged that the board should reconsider and refuse 
the grant of a license to No. 406, but the board refused that request 
and considered the grant to No. 420 after the record showed a grant to 
No. 406. In other words, he was running a barroom at Third and C 
Streets, which had been transferred to No. 406 H Street, and then 
they were considering the grant of another application for No. 420, 
all at the same time. 

The Chairman. Who represented Raftery? 

Mr. Shoemaker. In his application for No. 420 he was repre¬ 
sented by Mr. Joseph C. Sheehy and Mr. Michael J. Keane. 

The Chairman. Who represented him in his application for No. 
406? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I am not sure, but I think it was Mr. Keane. 

The Chairman. The record will show ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. It was Mr. Keane, I think. 

Senator Thompson. On this renewal for No. 406 last November, 
was another showing made ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. As I recall it, Mr. Sheehy appeared for him in 
October on the application for renewal of license, but we made no 
attempt to go further into the case at that time, deeming it absolutely 
useless. 

Senator Thompson. And the renewal was granted there as a mat¬ 
ter of course ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, in effect, as a matter of course. I do not 
remember any protest there. 

The Chairman. What did you hear any member of the excise 
board say regarding any testimony adduced in the Ebbitt House 
case? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 75 

Mr. Shoemaker. I knew of certain information in connection with 
the Ebbitt House case, as to the conduct of the Ebbitt House dining 
room and barroom, and some information came from Mr. Thomas 
Wood, who was a former employee of the Ebbitt House. He was 
what we call a door man on the Fourteenth Street side. Mr. Wood 
is now connected with the Capitol police force. Mr. Wood hesitated 
to appear publicly in giving his testimony against the Ebbitt House. 
He had some delicacy about it, and I asked him if he would appear 
with others whom he knew to have information about the conduct of 
the Ebbitt House, and he said he would. I then, at the first oppor¬ 
tunity, requested the board to grant a private hearing to Mr. Wood 
and others who might be introduced as witnesses. The board finally 
granted permission, not for the whole case, but for these witnesses 
referred to. The hearing was given and Mr. Wood appeared and gave 
his testimony, which was to my mind exceedingly damaging. I do 
not know whether you want me to repeat something of the nature of 
his testimony or not. 

The Chairman. He testified concerning the furnishing of liquor to 
girls, did he not ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; he testified to the practice of furnishing 
liquor to young women, some of them under age, and gave instances 
that came under his personal observation. He told of one instance 
where he personally had carried out a young girl 17 or 18 years old, 
carried her bodily, she being so drunk that she was not able to 
walk, and put her in an electric auto; that she had come down in the 
machine, driving it herself; and that the young man with her was 
unable to run the machine. He also told how the women who 
became intoxicated were taken out through an alleyway coming out 
on F Street, and put in carriages and taken away in that way. He 
also told about scenes he had witnessed in the dining room of the 
place, and told how useless it was to report to his superiors about 
the misconduct of the place. That was in effect the substance of his 
testimony. 

The Chairman. What observation, if any, did any member of the 
board make regarding that testimony? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The next morning after that hearing I was called 
to the board—to the board’s private office—by Mr. Bride about 
another matter—another case. He wanted to talk with me about 
the refusal of the board to accept some evidence I had offered the 
day previous in a case. Mr. Bride wanted the evidence admitted, 
and the other two refused to have it admitted. 

Senator Thompson. Do you mean thi^ Ebbitt House evidence? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; that has to do with the testimony in another 
case. 

Senator Thompson. While you were there did they bring up this 
matter of the Ebbitt House hearing ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. While I was there Mr. Bride said, in talk¬ 
ing about this other evidence, “Now, you see we ought to have 
admitted that evidence, for you see what we got out of the Ebbitt 
House case by having those witnesses.” With that remark the chair¬ 
man said, “I give no attention to that evidence. It has no weight 
with me whatever.” 

Senator Thompson. Meaning the Ebbitt House evidence ? 


76 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; the Ebbitt House evidence. He said, “It 
has no weight with me whatever; I pay no attention to it.” And 
Mr. Baker said, “Amen! Amen!” 

The Chairman. Had they granted the license at that time to the 
Ebbitt House ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No, they had not. They did not grant it until 
the 30th or 31st of October. 

The Chairman. 1914? 

Mr. Shoemaker. 1914; yes, sir; this last year. The hearing on the 
Ebbitt House case was on the application for the year beginning 
November 1 , 1914. 

The Chairman. Do you remember any other case in which obser¬ 
vations of similar character were made to you by the board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not know anything, Mr. Chairman, very defi¬ 
nite about any similar remarks in any other case. 

The Chairman. Very well. Have you had any conversation with 
any member of the board in addition to the conversations you have 
already alluded to in reference to license matters ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have had a great deal of conversation with the 
members of the board from time to time. 

The Chairman. Was anything ever said to you by any member of 
the board with reference to the fact that any individuals were making 
collections for members of the board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I remember one conversation I had with them. 

The Chairman. With whom ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. With the three members of the board. They 
sent for me upon one occasion and asked me if I had heard the 
rumors or talk in reference to large fees paid attorneys for appearing 
before the excise board. I told them that I had; that citizens had 
approached me and had commented upon the situation; that many 
of them had said to me that the fact that these attorneys were 
receiving such large fees was indicative of things that were not 
right. I talked with them along that line, and they with me in re¬ 
turn, and they seemed anxious to know how I felt about it, and I 
told them that my answer to folks who came to me in that way was 
that I had no knowledge of anything crooked in connection with the 
action of the board; that while I said that, I thought they should 
take some steps to dispel from the minds of the people as far as pos¬ 
sible the idea that the money paid to attorneys was going in part to 
members of the excise board; that I felt it was their duty to them¬ 
selves and to the community; that if I ever became convinced that 
the members of the board were grafting, receiving any part of the 
money paid to these attorneys, I should stop appearing before them. 
Mr. Bride remarked that it was deplorable that these large fees should 
be paid, and that so far as he was concerned, if he Knew that an 
attorney was receiving an unusual fee, he would feel constrained to 
vote against the granting of the license. 

The Chairman. Was this after the case of Columbus v. Sheehy had 
been tried? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; that was before. 

Senator Jones. What did the other members of the board say? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The other members said that they had nothing 
to do with what attorneys charged for their services; that it did not 
concern them at all. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 77 

Senator Jones. That is, the other members of the board seemed to 
be indifferent as to the fees that might be secured by attorneys ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Absolutely indifferent. 

Senator Jones. And so expressed themselves? 

Mr. Shoemaker. And so expressed themselves. 

The Chairman . Did you hear any member of the board say anything 
about collections made by Mr. Columbus and a Mr. Baker ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I heard no one of the board speak about it, I think, 
except Mr. Bride. 

The Chairman. What did you hear him say? 

Mr. Shoemaker. He simply spoke in a deploring way about it. 

Senator Jones. What did he say? 

The Chairman. Yes; what did he say? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not recall anything specially that he said. 
We had no extensive conversation about it. He simply stated that 
he had heard of it. I do not think anyone else was present. I think 
he said that to me in the board room. 

The Chairman. Did he mention the names of Mr. Columbus and 
Mr. Baker ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; not at that time. Let me see. Oh, I remem¬ 
ber that on one occasion he said to me that Mr. Columbus- 

The Chairman. Now, to what Columbus did he refer; not to the 
lawyer, Columbus? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I think his initials are W. F.; he is a lawyer. 

The Chairman. The lawyer Columbus ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I assumed he referred to him. He simply said 
“Columbus”- 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. And Mr. Baker’s son- 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Were acting as collectors for Mr. Baker. 

The Chairman. For Mr. Baker, a member of the excise board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. How did that conversation come up? 

Mr. Shoemaker. On the Saturday night prior to the granting of 
the renewals for the present license year I was with Mr. Bride and 
Chairman Smith and Mr. Hugh Harvey, making some inspections of 
saloons, and Mr. Bride, as I recall it, made the remark to me that 
night in our automobile before we met Mr. Smith and Mr. Harvey. 

The Chairman. Do you know young Mr. Baker’s initials ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Jones. What remark did he make to you in the auto¬ 
mobile ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Simply that Mr. Columbus and Mr. Baker’s son 
were acting as collectors. 

Senator Jones. In what connection did he make that remark? 
What led him to make it? 

Mr. Shoemaker. We were talking generally about excise conditions, 
and I do not know that he said anything further about it, but I 
expressed surprise, and we went on talking about something else. 

Senator Thompson. Just when was that, now ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That was on a Saturday night, the last Saturday 
night in October, as I recall it. 



78 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Wilson. The last Saturday in October. October 31 was 
Saturday. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Then it was the Saturday previous to that. 

Senator Jones. I would like to get from you the exact language 
used by Mr. Bride. Did he say that he understood Mr. Columbus 
and Mr. Baker were collecting this money and that they were doing 
it—state as nearly as you can what he said. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not know that he said that he understood. 
I have quoted it as nearly as I possibly can, that Mr. Columbus and 
Mr. Baker’s son were acting as collectors for Mr. Baker. 

The Chairman. What do you know about the charges with ref¬ 
erence to the location of saloons within a shorter distance than 400 
feet of houses of religious worship and public schoolhouses, colleges, 
and universities, measured by the shortest course of travel? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Mr. Chairman, previous to the hearings on the 
applications for renewals of licenses last fall I felt it necessary to 
make personal inspections and measurements, wherever it seemed 
to be necessary, of all saloons and wholesale places. 

The Chairman. Have you had any experience as a surveyor? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; I followed the business of surveying for 
several years in this District, and also in the State of Maryland, and 
I arranged with a party to accompany me with steel tapes and vis¬ 
ited all saloons that were applying for renewals of licenses and meas¬ 
ured where there was any chance of a public schoolhouse or a college 
or a university or a house of religious worship being within the limit. 
I also made measurements to inhabited alleys, and also made esti¬ 
mates of the business frontage on the sides of blocks where saloons 
were located. This work required many days. I made the measure¬ 
ments as carefully as I could without using a transit for the purpose. 
We measured to churches and schools and by the shortest course 
of travel from entrance to entrance over a public right of way. In 
some instances we measured different ways. I have here a sort of 
a field book, in which I have the names of the licensees and the 
location of every saloon applying for renewal of license, and I have, 
in addition to the results of measurements and inspections, the 
reports made by the police in connection with the various applica¬ 
tions for renewal of licenses. In many instances the police and my 
reports agree as to the distances between churches, schools, and 
houses of religious worship. 

The Chairman. You found a number of saloons to be located 
within a shorter distance than 400 feet ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Within 400 feet. 

The Chairman. Within 400 feet of houses of religious worship or 
public schools or colleges or universities? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. You provided me with a list of those places, did 
you not ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. I have submitted that list to the District surveyor 
for verification, so that unless you have something else on that, it is 
enough. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


79 


Senator Jones. I suggest that Mr. Shoemaker make his statement 
with reference to each item on that list, and how he found conditions, 
what he did, etc. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I want to say that one reason why we felt it 
necessary to make these measurements was because the board would 
not fix or determine any rule to govern the measurements. We 
could not find out how they were going to make the measurements. 
The police had no instructions as to how they should make them, 
and we had no light on the subject. 

The Chairman. Have they ever promulgated any definite rule of 
measurement ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No definite rule. We asked them several times 
to do that, but they refused, and consequently we were entirely in the 
dark as to their method of measurement. 

The Chairman. What answer did they make to your requests ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Their answer was that every case stood on its 
own bottom. 

The Chairman. That is, that they would have a different rule of 
measurement for each case ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I think so. 

The Chairman. What answer did they make to that? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Well, I got no satisfaction, and so I found the 
different captains of police precincts in making their measurements 
followed different rules according to their own ideas of how the dis¬ 
tance should be measured. Some captains measured the shortest 
possible way. Others did not, so there was some confusion in their 
reports. 

Senator Thompson. Did you not understand that the board had 
the view that the square-corner measurement should be made? 

Mr. Shoemaker. They held that they were at liberty to make 
rectangular measurements, and they endeavored to fall behind a 
traffic regulation which was recently modified, but which was 
formerly a prohibition against pedestrians crossing streets anywhere 
except at street crossings, and which provision of the traffic regula¬ 
tions was absolutely nil. There was no attempt to enforce it, and 
nobody paid any attention to it. In later regulations there was a 
modification of this rule, so that the prohibition was eliminated, and 
there was simply some advice about crossing streets, particularly in 
the downtown section where the traffic is heaviest. I inquired of 
the corporation counsel as to his construction of that regulation, 
and he said there was no prohibition against crossing the streets 
anywhere. 

The Chairman. Proceed with that list. 

(The list referred to is here printed in full, as follows:) 

The following-named saloonkeepers were granted licenses for the year beginning 
November 1, 1914, for places located within 400 feet of houses of religious worship, 
public schoolhouses, colleges or universities, according to measurements made by 
“the shortest course of travel” from entrance to entrance. Some are within the pre¬ 
scribed distance by longer measurements: 

John J. Allen, 807 North Capitol Street, 397 feet to St. Aloysius Church. 

Michael Daly, 1319 Seventh Street NW., 397 feet to Church of Immaculate Concep¬ 
tion by long measurement, 347 feet to Church of Immaculate Conception by short 
measurement. 

John D. O’Connor, 918 Ninth Street NW., 328 feet to College of Pharmacy; 375 feet 
longer measurement. 


80 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


August H. Plugge, 1317 Seventh Street NW., 329 feet of Immaculate Conception 
Church; 379 feet by longer way (right angles). 

John J. Brosnan, 506 Four-and-a-half Street SW., 364 feet to Jewish Church on E 
Street. 

James J. O’Donnell, 333 Pennsylvania Avenue SE., 385 feet to Metropolitan Pres¬ 
byterian Church. 

Patrick J. McDonald, 643 Pennsylvania Avenue SE., 364 feet to Wallach Public 
School. 

John J. Graff, 222 Seventh Street SE., 392 feet to Eastern High School. 

W. J. and Jeremiah Costello, 600 G Street NW., within 100 feet of Greek Catholic 
Church. 

Margaret Casey, 114 H Street NW., within 200 feet of public school. 

John T. O’Day, 921 Ninth Street NW., 367 feet to College of Pharmacy. 

John F. Schriner, 730 Fourteenth Street NW., 336 feet to New York Avenue Church, 
New York Avenue entrance; 375 feet to New York Avenue Church, H Street en¬ 
trance, measured straight angles. 

Mary T. Schulz, 607 G Street NW., within 200 feet of Greek Church. 

John F. Killeen, 1314 Wisconsin Avenue NW., 364 feet of Dumbarton Avenue 
Methodist Episcopal Church. 

Charles H. Morris, 2029 K Street NW., 330 feet of Stevens Public School. 

Robert H. Snook, 825 Seventh Street NW., 389 feet of Calvary Baptist Church. 

Frank C. Poch, 900 Four-and-a-half Street SW., 393 feet of public schoolhouse. 

Hugh F. Harvey, 1913 Pennsylvania Avenue SE., 340 feet to Union Methodist 
Episcopal Church. 

John E. Mergner, 415 East Capitol Street, 373 feet of public school. 

John J. Daly, 306 Sixth Street NW., distance to Central Union Mission. 

Luther H. McMillen, 1421 G Street NW., distance to Temple Business School. 

Wholesale places within 400 feet of churches or schools: 

Frank L. Ash, 1330 Twenty-eighth Street NW., two churches less than 400 feet. 

Eugene T. Lyddane, 1422 Wisconsin Avenue. 

Henry'S. Byrd & Martin J. Barry, 521 G Street NW. 

Wm. Hannan, 1519 Seventeenth Street NW. 

Lawrence A. McCormick, 327 Pennsylvania Avenue SE. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I measured the distance from the entrance to 
the John J. Allen saloon at 807 North Capitol Street to St. Aloysius 
Church on the same street, on the opposite side. (See Plate 1.) I made 
the distance 397 feet. 

The Chairman. You measured by the shortest course? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The shortest course of travel. 

The Chairman. By that you mean the shortest line; that is, the 
most direct line in which a person would walk over a public right of 
way from entrance to entrance ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes but we measured in that instance directly 
up the same side of the street some distance before crossing over. 

The Chairman. In leaving the entrance of. the saloon would you 
go any distance directly opposite the entrance before turning toward 
the church, or would you go directly in a line with the wall, against 
the wall ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. We would go out a sufficient distance to per¬ 
mit a pedestrian to walk comfortably. 

The Chairman. Exactly. About 18 inches? 

Mr. Shoemaker. About 18 inches or 2 feet. Then we measured 
across in a diagonal way, where people seemed to be walking to this 
church, into the yard, up to the entrance, and we made that dist¬ 
ance 397 feet. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Shoemaker. We measured the distance from the saloon of 
Michael Daly, at 1319 Seventh Street NW., to be 397 feet to the 
Church of the Immaculate Conception, by a long measurement. (See 
Plate 2.) 

Senator Jones. What do you mean by a long measurement ? 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


81 


Mr. Shoemaker. We went across the street at right angles. Let 
us see, what street is that? The Church of the Immaculate Con¬ 
ception is on N Street, west of Seventh Street. We measured along 
the pavement from the nearest entrance to the church to Seventh 
Street, across Seventh Street, as I remember it, to the opposite side, 
on which is located the saloon, and up to the saloon. 

Senator Thompson. That was by square corners ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. By square corners. 

Senator Jones. That is, you began by the entrance to the church 
on that side of the street and measured down the sidewalk opposite 
the entrance to the saloon, and then straight across to the entrance 
to the saloon; is that right? 

Mr. Shoemaker. This church is on the north side of N Street, west 
of Seventh. 

Senator Jones. It is on one side of the street, and the saloon is on 
the other ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The saloon is on Seventh Street and the church 
is on N Street. 

Senator Jones. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. We crossed Seventh Street to the side of the 
street on which the saloon is located, the east side, and went up to the 
entrance of the saloon. 

Senator Jones. Yes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I then made a measurement by a shorter route, 
and measured from the church entrance along the north side of N 
Street to the curbing of Seventh Street, and then in a diagonal line, 
an easy diagonal, to the entrance to the saloon, and that was 347 feet. 

Senator Jones. So that was within the distance by either measure¬ 
ment ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. By either measurement, as I made it. 

I then measured from the saloon of John D. O’Connor, at 918 
Ninth Street NW, and made the distance from the College of Pharmacy 
on I Street, east of Ninth Street, to be 328 feet. (See Plate 3.) The O’Con¬ 
nor saloon is on the west side of Ninth Street. I made a longer meas¬ 
urement of 375 feet. As I' recall it, I measured down from the entrance 
of the saloon to the north curb of I Street, and then in a diagonal line 
to the entrance of the College of Pharmacy. I made that distance 
328 feet. The long measurement was taken, as I recall it now, by 
crossing I Street at right angles and measuring up the south side of I 
Street to the entrance to the college. I made that distance 375 feet. 

Senator Jones. Do you know how long that college has been 
located there ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. It has been located there for, I should say, 10 or 
15 years. I am not sure about that. I may say, since the Senator 
has asked that question, that the college is a part of George Wash¬ 
ington University; the degrees are conferred by the George Wash¬ 
ington University; and in connection with some of these cases where 
this college came into consideration, the president of the University 
testified before the board as to the status of the College of Pharmacy, 
and his testimony convinced me beyond a question that it is a high- 
grade institution, a part of the University, and is a college just as 
much as is its College of Law or its College of Medicine. 


82 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Jones. Were these measurements made before the applica¬ 
tions for licenses were acted upon ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Oh, yes. 

Senator Jones. And were these measurements called to the atten¬ 
tion of the board in connection with the various applications before 
the hearings took place ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Before the hearings took place I furnished the 
results of these measurements to the board. 

The Chairman. Those measurements, as well as the measurements 
in the other cases you have listed ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; and at the hearing on each case we urged the 
location and the distances. 

Senator Thompson. Did they make any counter showing as to 
distances and how they arrived at their conclusions ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. They made measurements themselves. They were 
out at the same time I was out, in different parts of the city. I knew 
nothing as to the results of their measurements, and in fact I do not 
to this day. 

Senator Thompson. What I mean is, at the hearing they did not 
make any showing ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. They simply- 

Senator Thompson. Took judicial knowledge of the distances? 

Mr. Shoemaker. In some instances they would say that their meas¬ 
urements differed from mine. 

The Chairman. But they did not show exactly how they made their 
measurements ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No, sir; not in any instance just how they meas¬ 
ured. 

Senator Jones. And they did not point out wherein your measure¬ 
ments were wrong ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; and in some instances they promised to make 
remeasurements, and I think they did in some instances. 

The Chairman. All with the results favorable to the licensing of 
saloons in the cases you have listed there ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Give the other cases briefly. 

Mr. Shoemaker. August H. Plugge had a saloon at 1317 Seventh 
Street NW. (See Plate 4.) That saloon is next door to the one kept 
by Michael Daly, to which I have already referred, at 1319 Seventh 
Street NW. The Plugge saloon is nearer the Church of the Immacu¬ 
late Conception than the Daly saloon, and I made the measurements 
to his saloon in the same way as I made those to the Daly saloon. I 
made two measurements. 

The Chairman. Just read the rest of them, telling what you found 
the distances to be. 

Senator Jones. Just give the conclusions. 

Senator Thompson. You did not give the measurement to the 
Plugge saloon ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I made measurements to the Plugge saloon from 
the Church of the Immaculate Conception, and my shorter meas¬ 
urement was 329 feet, while the longer one, at right angles, was 
379 feet. & 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


83 


Senator Thompson. This shorter one that you speak of, is that 
the regular course or the natural course of one traveling: going the 
short way ? , 6 5 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; the shortest course of travel. 

I measured the distance from the saloon of John J. Brosnan at 
506 Four'-and-a-half Street SW., to the Jewish Church on E Street. 
(See Plate 5.) That distance I made to be 364 feet. 

James J. O’Dounell has a saloon at 333 Pennsylvania Avenue SE. 
(See Plate 6.) I made the distance from the entrance to that saloon 
to the nearest entrance to the Metropolitan Presbyterian Church to 
be 385 feet. The short part of that line is a diagonal one just cross¬ 
ing Pennsylvania Avenue. 

Patrick J. McDonald has a saloon at 643 Pennsylvania Avenue SE. 
(See Plate 7.) I measured the distance from the entrance to his 
saloon to the nearest entrance to the Wallach Public School to be 
364 feet. 

John J. Graff has a saloon at 222 Seventh Street SE. (See Plate 
8.) I measured the distance from the nearest entrance to his saloon 
to the nearest entrance to the Eastern High School to be 393 feet. 

W. J. & Jeremiah Costello have a saloon at 600 G Street NW. (See 
Plate 9.) I did not make an actual measurement of the distance from 
this saloon to the Greek Catholic Church, located on the opposite 
corner, just across the street. The distance, I should say, is less than 
100 feet. 

Senator Jones. Less than 100 feet ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. The distance is short, and that is the reason you did 
not measure it ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; that is the reason I did not measure it. 

Senator Jones. Do you know how long that church has been estab¬ 
lished there ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That church has been used by a Greek congrega¬ 
tion for nine years, and is the only one in the city, as I remember. 

Senator Jones. Is the building used for any other purpose ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The building has a basement underneath, and 
the auditorium at the top. The basement is now used and has 
been used for some little time as a bicycle shop. The priest of the 
church came on one occasion to protest against a license going across 
the street from his church, and he testified before the board in that 
case as to the regularity of his congregation and his services, and 
his testimony was absolutely convincing that it is a regular church 
organization, as regular as any other church in this city. 

Senator Jones. What excuse, if any, did the board give for grant¬ 
ing that license ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The board never gave any excuse to me at all. 
I never heard them express themselves about it. 

The Chairman. I understand that they hold that a house not 
exclusively used for religious purposes is not considered by them a 
house of religious worship under the terms of the law. 

Mr. Shoemaker. They have given such expressions in other cases, 
but not in this particular case, to me. 

The Chairman. In the reply which they have sent me, they make 
that contention. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes? 

84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3-7 


84 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Jones. So that under their contention, the mere fact that 
there was a little bicycle repair shop there would permit them to put 
any number of saloons within any distance of that church ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. As a matter of fact, there is another 
saloon on G Street just across from it, probably as close to it as 
Costello's saloon (see Plate 13), and the board has granted a license 
for a wholesale place (see Plate 24) also across the street within the 
prescribed distance. 

Margaret Casey has a saloon at 114 H Street NW. (See Plate 10.) 
She was permitted to transfer during the last license year to that place. 
It is within 200 feet of a public school known as the Manual Training 
School, which has been there, I think, for 13 or 14 years. The 
building is not owned by the District, but it has been leased by the 
District for these years. Underneath it is a milk-bottle establish¬ 
ment—that is, some dealer in milk bottles—and I suppose that the 
same rule applies which was referred to a while ago, that its not 
being occupied entirely as a schoolhouse has operated to prevent 
the school from having the protection the law seems to give it. 

Senator Thompson. That is a public school? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. And has been used as such for many years ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. It may be interesting to the Senators to 
know that these manual training schools accommodate a number of 
school buildings. They have their classes at different times in the 
day, for different schools so that a great many boys and girls go to 
them for one or two hours at a time. 

Senator Thompson. Can you give any idea of about what the 
attendance is at this place ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I think the evidence showed that at one time 
there was possibly an average of 200 a day who attended there. 

Senator Jones. You do not know how many rooms in the building 
are occupied for school purposes ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not know whether they have more than 
one room or not, Senator. I have never been in the school. It is 
a two-story building, and the school occupies the entire second floor. 

Senator Jones. And this bottling establishment occupies the lower 
floor? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Only a part of it. There are two small stores, 
and the last time I saw it one of them was vacant. This saloon I 
refer to is on the same side of the street with the school. 

Senator Jones. The board never did contend at any time, that 
you know of, that it was required by law to establish saloons with 
reference to these schoolhouses ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No, except that they gave the impression that 
they were required to grant 300 barroom licenses. 

Senator Jones. In the whole District? 

Mr. Shoemaker. In the whole District. 

Senator Jones. You need not go into that now. 

Mr. Shoemaker. John T. O'Day has a saloon at 921 Ninth Street 
NW. (See Plate 11.) I measured the distance from the entrance to 
that saloon to the college of pharmacy to be 367 feet. 

John F. Schriner has a saloon at 730 Fourteenth Street NW. See 
Plate 12.) I measured the distance from that saloon to the New York 
Avenue Presbyterian Church at the corner, where New York Avenue and 
H Street come together. I made the measurement from the nearest 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 85 

entrance of the church on New York Avenue to be 336 feet. I want 
to go into this just a little. I made the measurement by walking 
directly up the sidewalk on New York Avenue and taking a diagonal 
across Fourteenth Street to the saloon. 

Senator Jones. Then that would be a long measurement? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; that is the shortest measurement. 

Senator Jones. Oh, yes; on a diagonal. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. That would be the nearest entrance and the 
shortest course of travel ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; the nearest entrance on the New York 
Avenue side. This church has entrances both on New York Avenue 
and on H Street. 

After I had made the measurement to the Schriner saloon from the 
nearest entrance on New York Avenue, I observed members of the 
excise board making a measurement from the same entrance, and 
I found that they measured down along New York Avenue across 
Fourteenth Street, making an acute angle, up to the saloon. I do 
not know what they made the distance, but after they made their 
measurement, and a day or two before the applications were passed 
upon by the board, I made a measurement, from the nearest entrance 
to the church on H Street, in a rectangular way, and found the dis¬ 
tance 375 feet. That information I communicated by letter to the 
excise board at least two days before the license was granted. 

The Chairman. Did they make any answer to that letter ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. They made no answer to it. 

Mary T. Schulz has a saloon at 607 G Street NW. (See Plate 13.) 
The place is across the street from the Greek Catholic Church I referred 
to a while ago in connection with the Costello saloon. The distance 
is not more than 200 feet at most. 

John F. Killeen has a saloon at 1314 Wisconsin Avenue NW. (See 
Plate 14.) I measured the distance from the entrance to this saloon 
to the Dumbarton Avenue Methodist Episcopal Church to be 364 
feet, by making a short diagonal crossing. 

Senator Thompson. Did you make another measurement? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I made other measurements there, but this is 
the only one I have a record of here now. 

Senator Jones. Do you remember the results of the other meas¬ 
urements ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not, Senator. I made them and I may have 
the results in this book. I can look it up. 

Senator Jones. I just thought maybe you remembered. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not remember. 

Charles H. Morris has a saloon at 2029 K Street NW. (See Plate 
15.) I measured the distance from that saloon to the nearest 
entrance to the Stevens Public School Building. It is 330 feet. That 
was by the shortest course of travel over a public right of way be¬ 
tween entrance and entrance. 

Robert H. Snook has a saloon at 825 Seventh Street NW. (See 
Plate 16.) I measured the distance from that saloon to the nearest 
entrance to the Calvary Baptist Church at the corner of Eighth and 
H Streets and made the distance 389 feet. 


86 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Frank C. Poch has a saloon at 900 Four-and-a-half Street SW. 
(See Plate 17.) I made the distance from that saloon to a public 
schoolhouse to be 393 feet. 

Hugh F. Harvey has a saloon at No. 1913 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW. (See Plate 18.) I measured the distance from his saloon to the 
nearest entrance to the Union Methodist Episcopal Church on Twen¬ 
tieth Street to be 340 feet. 

John E. Mergner has a saloon at 415 East Capitol Street. (See 
Plate 19.) He has been there some years. There is a large parking 
there that has been used for walking over; most of it brick, as I recall 
it. This saloon prior to the erection of an iron fence around the 
parking in front of the saloon was measured to be 373 feet from a 
public school building on Fifth Street. 

The Chairman. Is that going around the parking or across the 
parking ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. By walking down the sidewalk next to the 
building line, almost flush up with the building line, the sidewalk, as 
I remember it, extending the full length of the block—a brick walk. 
This fence takes in about 40 feet in front of the saloon. 

The Chairman. Of the sidewalk ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. That made a difference of 80 feet in going 
around the fence and then going up to the saloon. 

Senator Thompson. Do you know when that was done ? When 
the change was made ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That was done during the last license year. 

The Chairman. Is there a fence also on the other side of the 
entrance ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. There is a fence on the other side of the entrance, 
but there is a gateway in it coming from the other way, so that 
people going to the saloon from the west along East Capitol Street 
can enter the saloon without going around the fence. 

The Chairman. But if they go from the school to the saloon they 
have to go entirely around? 

Mr. Shoemaker. They have to go entirely around. 

Senator Jones. This fence incloses a part of the sidewalk, prac¬ 
tically? 

Mr. Shoemaker. A part of the sidewalk; yes. 

The Chairman. Therefore, if you measured it, and measured down 
the length of that fence before turning at right angles to go to the 
school, the school would be more than 400 feet from the entrance to 
saloon ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. I see. 

Senator Jones. The apparent purpose of this fence is to get the 
saloon outside of the distance from the schoolhouse ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Absolutely. 

The Chairman. The effect of it is that, anyway ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. It may make a difference of 80 feet in the 
distance between the two entrances. 

The Chairman. You say this fence was put up after the Jones- 
Works law was enacted, and before it went into effect? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir; I understand so. 

Senator Jones. Was that called to the attention of the board? 


EXCISE BOARD OP THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 87 

r Mr. Shoemaker. Oh, yes; we called that to the attention of the 
board at the hearing. 

Senator Jones. This fence being built out there, the situation was 
called to the attention of the board before the application was granted ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; that was our principal ground of opposition. 

The Chairman. Was there not another instance of an extension 
being built in front of a saloon on one side of its entrance ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is that new saloon listed here ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; it is another place I thought you referred to. 

The Chairman. You will find that a wholesale place, I think. 
Was there another entrance where there was a parking con¬ 
structed ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; in front of the saloon of John J. Graff, 222 
Seventh Street SE. (See Plate 8.) 

Senator Jones. Close to what place? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Close to the Eastern High School. There has 
been a grass plot formed in front of that saloon. 

The Chairman. On the sidewalk ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. On the sidewalk. 

The Chairman. And on the side of the entrance near the school ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. On the side of the entrance near the school; be¬ 
tween the entrance to the saloon and the school. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. So that folks coming out of the saloon would have 
to walk around that grass plat. That makes a difference of several 
feet. 

The Chairman. When did that grass plat make its appearance ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I can not determine that. I do not recall 
whether it was there when we made our measurement or not, but I 
have gone there since and I saw it there, and I have been trying to 
determine whether it was there when we made our measurements 
or not. 

The Chairman. How much of the sidewalk does that grass plat 
take up ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. How much of it ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. The plot is, I should say, about 12 feet square, to 
the best of my recollection. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Shoemaker. And it has a little coping around it about 8 or 10 
inches high. 

Senator Jones. Do you know who put that grass plot in there ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not know. I have been told, but I do not 
know. The information that came to me was that it was put in 
there by the proprietor of the saloon. 

Senator Jones. Was this situation called to the attention of the 
excise board before the application was granted ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I think that that was not called to the attention 
of the board. The fact is, I did not know about it at the time. 

The Chairman. The board, however, made a personal inspection be¬ 
fore it granted that license ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. The board must have seen this plot of grass there? 


88 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Shoemaker. I should think so. I say this in explanation: 
After we filed our fist of measurements they were made records in the 
office and the applicants had access to them, and then there were a 
number of changes similar to this one in the Graff case, in order in 
some way to circumvent the law. 

Senator Jones. You say there are a number? Detail those 
changes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I can not at this moment give them all to you. 
I remember one in connection with a wholesale place. A number of 
these changes were not as to measurements so much as to changes in 
business frontage and things of that kind. 

Senator Jones. Changes in entrances, etc. ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. And changes in entrances. 

Senator Thompson. This change was made to affect the measure¬ 
ment ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; to affect the measurement. 

The Chairman. Proceed with your cases where a change was made 
in the front of a saloon. 

Mr. Shoemaker. In the grass plot ? 

The Chairman. No; that is a wholesale house. 

Mr. Shoemaker. There are only two places where-- 

The Chairman. You have not finished your barroom list yet? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No. John J. Daly has a saloon at 306 Sixth 
Street NW. (See Plate 20.) As I recall it, it is within the 400-foot 
limit of the Central Union Mission. 

Luther H. McMillen was allowed to transfer a license to 1421 G 
Street NW., I think next door to, or the second door from, the 
Temple College or school, one of the largest colleges or business 
schools in the city, against its earnest protest. (See Plate 21.) 

Senator Thompson. That is a commercial school, is it not? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is there not another school next door to it—the 
Success Shorthand School ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not know about that. 

Senator Thompson. Do you know about how many people attend 
this school ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The Temple School has several hundred pupils 
a day there. The principal oi the school protested against the appli¬ 
cation and testified about the number of pupils at the time. 

The Chairman. Right here, I will ask Mr. Andrew Wilson if he 
has any knowledge as to whether the Success Shorthand School is 
next door to this other institution ? 

Mr. Wilson. It is. It is in one building, and the other is in the 
other building, and I think the Success Shorthand School is nearer 
than the Temple School. The Success Shorthand School is in the 
next building to the McMillen Building, and the Temple School is 
the one next east of that, farther away from it. 

Mr. Shoemaker. The second door ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right; go ahead. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Frank L. Ash has a wholesale liquor license at 
1330 Twenty-eighth Street NW. (See Plate 22.) There are two 
churches less than 400 feet from the place. The distance I do not 
seem to have here on this fist. This place is in a colored neighbor- 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


89 


hood, and the license was granted against most vigorous protests, 
one of the most vigorous protests we have heard before the board. 
Four of their churches are near by. 

Senator Thompson. Four churches? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; in the immediate neighborhood. 

Senator Thompson. Colored churches? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; colored churches. I measured the distance 
from the wholesale establishment of Eugene T. Lyddane at 1422 
Wisconsin Avenue NW. (See Plate 23.) The measurement did not 
require the crossing of ‘ a street, but around a corner to a public 
school building, and I made the distance 399 feet, measured out the 
proper distance to where one can comfortably walk, and we walked 
comfortably to make the measurement, into the yard 20 feet, and then 
into an entrance of the school building. 

Lawrence A. McCormick has a license at 327 Pennsylvania Avenue 
SE. (see Plate 27), which is within the prescribed distance of a 
house of religious worship. The exact distance I have not on this 
list, but I have it in this book here. 

Senator Thompson. What church is it? 

Mr. Shoemaker (after consulting surveying book). It is 322 feet, 
as I made it, to the Church of the Reformation. The police made the 
distance 347 feet to the German Church of the Reformation. 

Henry S. Byrd and Martin J. Barry (See Plate 24) have a whole¬ 
sale license at 521 G Street NW., which is across the street from or 
near to the Greek Catholic Church, referred to before. That license 
was transferred there during the last license year. 

William Hannan has a wholesale license at 1519 Seventeenth Street 
NW. (See Plate 25.) I measured the distance from that place to 
the Foundry Methodist Episcopal Church at Fifteenth and Church 
Streets, and I made the distance to be 369 feet, and I made another 
measurement, a long measurement, that made it 378 feet, running at 
right angles across Church Street and then down to the store. I learned 
since these measurements were made, however, that a fence had been 
erected, prior to the granting of the license, making the distance 
greater; how much greater, I do not know. I have not examined 
it since. 

I am reminded that a license was also granted to a Mr. Henry 
for a wholesale establishment on Pennsylvania Avenue, between 
Nineteenth and Twentieth Streets, within 400 feet of the Union 
Methodist Episcopal Church, against the protest of the church and of 
the Anti-Saloon League. 

The Chairman. Does that conclude that list ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I think that concludes the list, Mr. Chairman. 
I was about to say, though, that a number of other licenses have been 
granted which we think are in violation of law, in that they are 
within 400 feet of houses of religious worship. 

The Chairman. Yes. % 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not mean regular church buildings with 
steeples or bells and towers, but buildings that have been occupied 
for years by missions; by the Salvation Army where more religious 
services are held than probably at any other regular church in the 
city. 

Senator Thompson. Can you give those? 

The Chairman. Will you prepare us a list of those ? 


90 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Shoemaker. I had better prepare a list of those. 

Senator Thompson. And show it in detail. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

(The list referred to was subsequently submitted to the chairman 
and is here printed in full, as follows:) 

A supplemental list of barrooms and wholesale liquor establishments located within 
400 feet of houses of religious worship or schools , according to police reports and other 
information. 

BARROOMS. 

Metropolitan Company, 623 Fifteenth Street NW., to Temple Business College. 
Maurice J. Sheehan, 145 H Street NE., to chapel Little Sisters of the Poor. 

George J. Bessler, 922 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., to Salvation Army. 

Roland Evans, 1743 L Street NW., to chapel Louise Home. 

Wm. J. Vonderheide, 606 Ninth Street NW., to Strayer’s Business College. 

Michael Morris, 3004 M Street NW., to Central Union Mission, Jewish house of wor¬ 
ship, and Bocock School. 

Frank Endres, 1015 I Street NW., to the Drillery. 

Bartholomew Roddy, 1001 C Street NW., to Salvation Army. 

Edward Mannix, 3059 M Street NW., to Jewish house of worship and Bocock School. 
Timothy W. Dunworth, 1002 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., to Salvation Army. 
Michael M. Lyons, 906 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., to Salvation Army. 

James B. McDonnell, 312 Seventh Street SW., to St. Marys Academy and Chapel. 
Harvey Co., 1016 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., to Salvation Army. 

James D. Kettner, 719 Four and a Half Street SW., to Jewish Sunday school. 
Michael V. Moran, 3011 M Street NW., to Central Union Mission, Jewish church, 
and Bocock School. 

John H. DeAtley, 1222 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., to Grace Pentecostal Church. 
Robert R. Hogan, 2033 M Street NW., to Central Union Mission, Jewish church, 
and Bocock School. 

Hugh J. McGinness, 1001 New York Avenue, to Carroll Institute and School. 
Charles Wolf, 1202 Seventh Street SW., to Pentecostal Mission. 

Thomas R. Marshall, 1323 F Street NW., to College of Music. 

WHOLESALE. 

Maurice L. Wolpe, 916 Ninth Street NW., to College of Pharmacy. 

Eldorado Wine Co., 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., to Grace Pentecostal Church. 
P. J. Drury Co., 327 Thirteenth Street NW., to Bethany Chapel. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Those places have been ignored. 

Senator Thompson. Although protests were made ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Although protests were made. We protested in 
practically every instance. 

Senator Thompson. That was the ground, that they were within 
400 feet ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; we made it our business to make a protest 
in every such instance, and the minutes of the board should show that 
those protests were made. 

The Chairman. I have here a list of saloons that are claimed to be 
on nonbusiness streets, or in residential neighborhoods or districts, 
wholesale and retail. Will you read that list for the record ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; it is as follows [reading]: 

The Anti-Saloon League’s careful investigation shows that the following barroom 
licenses were granted for the license year beginning November 1,1914, on nonbusiness 
streets or in residence districts contrary to the evident intent and purpose of the law: 
Louise Gordon, 407 Q Street NW. 

Theodore G. Stoner, 206 Seventh Street SW. 

John T. Branson, 614 Eleventh Street SW. 

Mary A. Solan, 1003 Seventh Street NW. 

Paul Allen, 2 N Street NW. 

Patrick Raitery, 225 Eleventh Street NE. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


91 


Dennis J. O’Donnell, 411 Four-and-a-half Street SW. 

Gustave Brahler, 410 E Street NE. 

Patrick J. Callan, 238 Second Street NW. 

John Morris, 1610 U Street NW. 

Peter Loftus, 329 Thirteen-and-a-half Street NW. 

Augustus Loftus, 302 N Street NW. 

John E. Mergner, 415 East Capitol Street. 

Daniel F. Driscoll, 107 H Street NW. 

John J. Sullivan, 1331 Thirty-fifth Street NW. 

Michael J. O’Donoghue, 701 I Street SW. 

Metropolitan Club, 1700 H Street NW. 

Army and Navy Club, 1627 I Street NW. 

Patrick J. McDonald, 643 Pennsylvania Avenue SE. 

Henry C. Hibbs, 2000 K Street NW. 

Lena Morgenweck, 12 Fourth Street NE. 

Thomas J. Leonard, Anacostia SE ; 

University Club, 900 Fifteenth Street. NW. 

Anna A. E. Klotz, 1708 G Street NW. 

Patrick O’Donohue, 908 Fourth Street NW. 

Bridget Leech, 1847 L Street NW. 

Charles W. Edwards, 491 Missouri Avenue NW. 

Daniel Scanlon, 105 H Street, NW. 

Stoneleigh Court, 1019 Connecticut Avenue NW. 

David Cohen, 118 First Street NW. 

Francis X. Cox, 1618 U Street NW. 

John H. Harris, 15 Massachusetts Avenue NW. 

Jeremiah Costello, 521 First Street SW. 

The Portner Apartment House, Fifteenth and U Streets NW. 
Commercial Club, 1634 Eye Street NW. 

Mary Sullivan, 73 Eye Street, SE. 

Daniel Doody, 1312 North Capitol Street. 

Mary E. Frank, 319 G Street NW. 

Elks Club, 919 H Street NW. 

Michael E. Buckley, 2028 M street NW. 

Hotel Gordon, 916 Sixteenth Street NW. 

Congress Hall Hotel, 233 New Jersey Avenue SE. 

Harry Winingder, 631 Pennsylvania Avenue SE. 

John D. Kelliher, 1258 Water Street SW. 

Washington Saengerbund (Inc.), .314 C Street, NW. 

Cairo Apartment House, 1615 Q Street NW. 

Capital Park Hotel, North Capitol and E Streets NW. 

Luke J. Kearney, 1811 L Street NW. 

Charles H. Morris, 2029 K Street NW. 

Hugh J. McGinness, 1001 New York Avenue NW. 

Charles Wolf, 1202 Water Street SW. 

George F. Neitzey, 1106 Water Street SW. 

John J. Madden, 401 Four and a half Street SW. 

Charles C. Leavens, corner New Jersey Avenue and C Street SE. 
Walter Spauls, 2012 K Street NW. 

William J. Boyle, 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW. 

Patrick Smyth, 101 D Street SW. 

The Monticello, club, 1301 Fourth Street NW. 

Century Club, 815 Vermont Avenue NW. 

Peter J. Lynagh, 523 Seventh Street SW. 

WHOLESALE LICENSES GRANTED ON NONBUSINESS STREETS OR IN 
SECTIONS FOR THE YEAR BEGINNING NOVEMBER 1, 1914. 

Margaret Hawkins, 1240 Twenty-second Street NW. 

Alexander S. Clarke, 1820 Eighteenth Street NW. 

Christian Schmidt, 713 Maryland Avenue NE. 

Otto Herzog, 1340 New Hampshire Avenue NW. 

Pauline H. Bresnahan, 1252-1254 Twentieth Street NW. 

Benjamin Kotz, 1005 Sixth Street NE. 

Wm. Muehleisen Co. (Inc.), 916 Fifth Street NW. 

Robert E. Bresnahan, 670 B Street SE. 

Robert E. Smith, 340 Sixth Street SE. 

Julius Albrecht, 1705 Third Street NE. 


RESIDENTIAL 


92 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Louis J. Cohen, 1400 Fourth Street NW. 

Margaret Kenny, 314 C Street NE. 

Jacob Brenner, 2523 M Street NW. 

Agnes C. Brandes, 1527 Twelfth Street NW. 

Bernard Walls, Eleventh Street and Massachusetts Avenue NE. 

Richard T. Mazinger, 359 M Street SW. 

Henry J. Keough, 343 First Street NE. 

Anna M. Murphy, 1400 Twelfth Street NW. 

George W. Hume, 1018 Eighteenth Street NW. 

John O’Donoghue, 1400 First Street NW. 

Wm. & Morris Wolf, 2157 K Street NW. 

Patrick Cannon, 1257 Twenty-second Street NW. 

Theodore W. Estler, 1301 C Street SW. 

Otto Ruppert, 1402 Twelfth Street NW. 

The German Brewing Co. (Inc.), 65 I Street SE. 

The Chairman. Have you any comment to make in regard to any 
of these ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have this comment to make. 
Some of these places are on blocks where there is 50 per cent or more 
of the foot frontage used for business purposes. Many of them'are on 
corners, with one frontage used for business purposes, the side street 
being wholly residential, and the territory beyond on either side of 
the street being given up almost entirely to homes of the people. 

The Chairman. As a rule have the people on these residence streets 
protested against these saloons ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. In many instances; yes, sir. Many of the cor¬ 
ners, for instance, on H Street NE., running all the way from Fifteenth 
Street down to North Capitol Street, are occupied by saloons. There 
are some business blocks on H Street mostly small community 
businesses, but on either side of H Street, all the way out, it is built 
up with homes. The side streets are almost invariably—in fact I do 
not know of a single instance in which it is not so—altogether resi¬ 
dential. 

Senator Jones. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that a personal 
inspection by our committee will clear that up much better than 
anything Mr. Shoemaker can say. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. I simply wanted to know whether he had any com¬ 
ment to give us in connection with the hearings that were held on 
these cases. 

Senator Jones. Oh, yes; that would be all right. 

Senator Thompson. Were these matters shown up on hearings for 
license ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir; in every instance. We called their 
attention to them. Licenses were granted right next door to homes, 
against protests. 

The Chairman. These are all kinds of saloons, as I understand, 
wholesale and retail? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No, sir; this is a list of bars. 

The Chairman. Later on there is a list of wholesale places ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Have you any comment to make regarding the 
hearings that were held on this phase of the question, in residence 
sections ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. In residence sections ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


93 


Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. The eastern section of the city is very 
largely residential. H Street NE., and Pennsylvania Avenue SE., 
contain practically the business in the southeastern section excepting 
a little on Eleventh and Eighth Streets, near the Marine Barracks. 
That is, in fact, all of the business in that section of the city except, 
of course, there is a drug store and maybe a grocery store around 
here and there. Ninety-nine hundredths, I should say, of the build¬ 
ings are homes in that section. The people out there felt that the 
whole section ought to be under the law, and was intended to be free 
from saloons, and they got up a very vigorous and numerously 
signed petition addressed to the excise board, asking that for this 
present license year, at least, that the section be a dry section, where 
no licenses would be granted. A hearing was given to these protes- 
tants, and I do not know how many appeared, but I have a great list 
of those who appeared at that time; their signatures were given, and 
they made a protest against the granting of licenses; but the board 
paid no more attention to it than to say that they would not grant 
their request. 

Senator Thompson. Can you give us the estimated number of 
people who appeared, protesting ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I suppose there were 200. There were thousands, 
I believe, who protested against it on the written petitions or protests. 

Senator Thompson. But several hundred appeared in person? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; I will not say many hundred; but I think 
possibly 200 appeared. I do not know how many; I do not recol¬ 
lect; but there was a very large attendance. The board used the 
commissioners , board room for the purpose of the hearing, and that 
room was about filled. Then the citizens of Anacostia had filed a 
separate petition. It is claimed that their petition against a license 
of any kind there represented, by actual signatures secured, at least 
three-fourths of the adults of that place. Anacostia is situated 
across the river, and is a community in itself, a home community 
with but two streets that have any business that amount to any¬ 
thing. The two streets coming together at the bridge contain all 
the business of Anacostia, and the rest of it is made up of homes, 
churches, and schools. They had a hearing also, in the board room 
of the District commissioners, and the room was filled at that time 
and the board heard them apparently patiently, but that is all it 
amounted to, unfortunately. 

Senator Jones. Were there any petitions presented from persons 
there asking for the granting of the license ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I believe not, Senator. There were two or three 
citizens who appeared in behalf of it, I think. I do not recall any 
petition at all. 

Senator Jones. Two or three citizens; but were there apparently 
attorneys employed by those desiring licenses ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not recall now that anybody appeared at 
that general hearing. There were some few who appeared in a hear¬ 
ing for other licenses over there. I have got a little mixed on them. 
Yes, attorneys did appear for the applicants. 

The Chairman. There was a saloon that was located in Anacostia. 
Was it located in a business block? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That saloon is on a block where there is sufficient 
business. 


94 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. Then what point do you make in regard to that ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That the district is residential; that the section 
is residential. 

The Chairman. Under the law the board is not required to take 
the district into consideration, is it? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. But merely the residence character of the block ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. As I understand it, they are to take the section 
into consideration. If the chairman will read the section, if he has 
not already read it, he will see that that reference is made there. 

The Chairman. Can you put your hand on it. 

Mr. Shoemaker. It is section 1, page 2, I think. 

The Chairman. Let me read that section now. It is at the top of 
page 4. It is a part of paragraph 2, and reads as follows [reading]: 

Hereafter no license shall be granted for the establishment or maintenance of a bar¬ 
room or other place for the sale of intoxicating liquors, otherwise than in sealed pack¬ 
ages and not to be drunk on the premises, in any residence portion of the District of 
Columbia; and it shall be the duty of the excise board to determine in the case of 
each application for license whether the location where the barroom is to be located 
is or is not within the business portion of the District, and if not the license shall be 
denied; and the excise board is hereby autherized and required to determine in 
each case what is so far devoted to business as to constitute it a business street or 
section: Provided , That no license shall be granted for any saloon or barroom on any 
side of any square, block, or tract of land where less than fifty per centum of the foot 
frontage, not including saloons or hotels and clubs having barroom licenses under 
this section, is used for business purposes; nor shall intoxicating liquors be sold at 
wholesale outside of the business district as above provided. 

Senator Thompson. You admit, then, that it comes within that 
proviso there? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I admit that there is enough business there; 
that that proviso is all right. I mean that it does come within the 
proviso. 

Senator Jones. The proviso is simply a limitation on the power of 
the excise board in determining what is a business section of the 
District. That is, they are given the broad power, first, to determine 
whether a section or district is a business section or district ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. And then, in order still further to limit their power 
relative to a business section, they are absolutely prohibited from 
granting a license unless 50 per cent of the frontage is occupied for 
business purposes ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That is my view of it, exactly, and the same view 
that I have preferred time and again before the board, that even in a 
business section if there should be a block- 

Senator Jones. You mean in a residence section? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; I mean this, that under that provision if in a 
business section there should be one side of a block given over to 
homes, then the board would be prohibited from granting a license 
under that proviso. 

Senator Jones. Yes. 

The Chairman. But the intent of the law is that in a district that 
is almost wholly residential, that is, in a district that is practically 
residential, there shall be no saloons licensed, although a small section 
of the district may be devoted to business ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Ye&, and a block here and there— a side of a 
block. 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


95 


The Chairman. I see. 

Mr. Shoemaker. It would be prohibited because the general 
section immediately around is largely residential. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. And it provides simply a limitation in a business 
section more particularly. 

Senator Jones. How many saloons are over in the Anacostia 
section ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Only one saloon and one wholesale place. 

Senator Jones. Is the wholesale place among business houses? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I can not remember that definitely. I never 
saw that particular place, Senator. 

Senator Jones. The reason I asked is that I got the impression 
from somebody that there was a saloon license or a wholesale license 
granted in Anacostia in a section or a block where it would be pro¬ 
hibited by that proviso, even. I wanted to know whether I was right 
about that. 

Senator Thompson. That it was not even on a business street ? 

Senator Jones. Yes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I am not sure. I can not answer that question, 
but I will find out about it. 

Senator Jones. The chairman covered this awhile ago, but I want 
to ask Mr. Shoemaker about it. Do you know anything about the 
placing of saloons within a thousand feet of the Marine Barracks, the 
navy yard, the War College, and so forth? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. I have not any idea at all that the board 
has granted any licenses within those restricted districts. 

Senator Jones. You think there has been no violation of law in 
that way ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. That is all right, then. 

The Chairman. Here I have a list of saloons that it is claimed 
are operated within 300 feet of an alley or slum. Did the board 
exceed its authority or violate its authority in granting licenses to 
those saloons ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; I think not, Mr. Chairman. The law per¬ 
mits the board, if they act unanimously, to grant licenses within 300 
feet of alleys. 

The Chairman. It allows them to do that? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; the law allows the board to grant licenses 
for saloons within 300 feet of alleys. 

The Chairman. One member, however, can prohibit the granting 
of a license for a place within 300 feet of an inhabited alley or slum ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. We urged these alleys as objections against 
the granting of licenses if they were within the prescribed limit. 

The Chairman. The board has acted, then, with unanimity as to 
every application that has been made for a license for a saloon within 
300 feet of an alley or slum ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. They have acted with unanimity. 

The Chairman. In every case. That is the reason I say they have 
all acted together on every case since they have been constituted a 
board. Is the case of Frank Hall an exception ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; the record shows that the three members of 
the board voted to reject Frank Hall's application. 


96 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. I know; but was his case rejected on the ground 
that he was within 300 feet of an alley or slum ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I could not state that. We urged the alley 
against it, and they tried to show that the inhabitants in the alley 
had moved out prior to the rejection of the license. Whether they 
did or not, I do not know. 

The Chairman. I have here a list of 28 saloons that are claimed to 
be within 300 feet of inhabited alleys. I think you provided me 
with that list. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you identify the list so that I can insert it in 
the record ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir; this is the list. 

(The list referred to is here printed in full, as follows:) 

The following barrooms were licensed for the year beginning November 1, 1914, 
within 300 feet of inhabited alleys: 

John P. Sheehan, 701 North Capitol Street. 

Michael Mclnemey, 1226 Seventh Street NW. 

Terence Fegan, 930 Fourth Street NW. 

Leopold Birkle, 1245 H Street NE. 

Jeremiah O’Connor, 115 Four and a-half Street NW. 

Wm. E. O’Connor, 234 Four and a-half Street SW. 

Michael J. Lynch, 350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

Wm. Doyle, 1218 Wisconsin Avenue NW. 

George P. Harrigan, 729 Ninth Street SW. 

James O’Connor, 1429 North Capitol Street. 

George W. Hall, 927 Four-and-a-half Street SW. 

Wm. Hanlon, 1235 Seventh Street NW. 

Stephen Chaconas, 468 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

Daniel J. Alman, 244 Fourteenth Street SW. 

Patrick J. Neligan, 1908 Fourteenth Street NW. 

John M. Trant, 629 Four-and-a-half Street SW. 

Gregor Kramm, 224 Fourteenth Street SW. 

Minnie E. Costello, 45 H Street NE. 

John E. Bonini, 729 North Capitol Street. 

Kate H. Welch, 248 Third Street SW. 

Maurice Ganey, 615 Seventh Street SW. 

Patrick J. Bligh, 235 Four-and-a-half Street SW. 

Patrick J. Daly, 626 Four-and-a-half Street SW. 

Francis J. Stanton, 1205 Wisconsin Avenue. 

Michael T. Greene, 639 D Street SW. 

Wm. J. O’Leary, 733 North Capitol Street. 

Wm. T. Babbington, 34 H Street NE. 

Thomas Cannon, 1358 H Street NE. 

The Chairman. It is a fact, then, is it, that no one member of the 
board has taken it upon himself to object to giving license to a saloon 
upon the ground that it is within 300 feet of an alley or slum ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I can answer that by saying that all the licenses 
that they have granted were by unanimous vote of the board. 

The Chairman. Any one member of the board could have stopped 
a license to any one of these saloons here that was within 300 feet of 
an alley or slum on the ground that it was within 300 feet ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That is true. 

The Chairman. But it is evident that no member of the board has 
taken advantage of that objection to decline a license? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Well, now, I will not say that the board has 
not—that some member of the board has not—objected to the grant¬ 
ing of licenses on the ground of proximity to alleys. I rather think 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


97 


they have in some instances where the alleys have operated to pre¬ 
vent the granting of licenses. 

Senator Thompson. He is asking you about this list. 

The Chairman. I am asking about this particular list, which is a 
list of places within 300 feet of an alley. If any member of the board 
had objected on that ground, they could not have gotten licenses? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; they could not have gotten licenses; I 
want to say this about that list. After our lists were filed, before 
hearings, calling attention to the alleys in close proximity to saloons, 
there were some changes in some of these slum alleys. For instance, 
there may have been four or five families or three families in an alley, 
and the houses were bought up or leased by the licensee and the 
inhabitants were moved out, whether temporarily or permanently 
we do not know. At the hearing, when the police report was read, and 
it was shown there was an alley within 300 feet, with so many inhabi¬ 
tants in it, and when our evidence was offered that there was an alley 
there within so many feet, and so many people living in it, or so many 
homes in it, then the other side would get up and say “There is nobody 
in that alley at all.” “When did they get out?” “They went out 
last week.” 

The Chairman. That was after you had filed your objections? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. And before the board passed upon this matter? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; and at the hearings. So that that list, Mr. 
Chairman, may contain some alleys where there is nobody living at 
the present time. I can not say about that, but I wanted to put 
that in, so as to be fair about it. 

The Chairman. What are some of the more notorious alleys that 
have saloons within 300 feet of them ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Jackson Alley, down at G and H Streets and 
North Capitol Street. 

The Chairman. Do you know what saloon, if any, are located 
within 300 feet of Jackson Alley ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; I can tell you. Bonini’s saloon is one. 

The Chairman. That is No. 729 North Capitol Street? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; and there are two others on that same side 
of the block on North Capitol Street. 

The Chairman. Did you object to licenses for these places on 
account of the notorious character of Jackson Alley ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. We did; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you present evidence showing the disreputable 
nature of the alley ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The police report showed that it was inhabited 
by the lower class of colored people. 

The Chairman. What did it show took place in that alley? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I asked the board to examine that alley. 

The Chairman. Do you know what developed in regard to the 
alley further ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Nothing further about it. It was simply of that 
character. 

The Chairman. Were there any dives or disreputable places m the 
alley? 

Mr. Shoemaker. It is a place that causes the police a good deal of 
trouble. It has several entrances to it. It comes out on H Street and 


98 


EXCISE BOARD OP THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


on North Capitol Street, and also comes out on G Street, and it has 
been regarded as one of the worst alleys in town. 

Senator Jones. Do you know how many people live in it? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I can not recall, Senator, but it is one of the 
largest alleys in the city. 

Senator Jones. Several hundred people? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; I should say several hundred. 

Senator Jones. How many saloons are within 300 feet of that 
alley? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I should say 8 or 10. 

Senator Jones. Eight or ten saloons? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. What is your idea in reference to the action of the 
board in granting those licenses ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. My own judgment is, and I urged it before the 
board, that the character of that alley was such that the discretion 
given to them under the law should be exercised and those licenses 
refused. Some of them are right at the mouth of the alley. 

Senator Jones. The saloons were apparently put there for the 
purpose of getting the alley trade ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; especially those around on H Street and on 
G Street. 

The Chairman. What do you know about Wylie Court NE. ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Wylie Court has a bad police reputation. It is 
located on H Street, between Twelfth and Thirteenth Streets. I 
have been in that alley and it is occupied almost entirely, in fact 
entirely, by colored people, and my attention has been called a num¬ 
ber of times to fights and brawls and carousing and drinking there. 

The Chairman. .How many saloons are there within 300 feet of 
Wylie Court? Just answer in a general way. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I think there are three. There are two or three. 

The Chairman. Have you the names of the licensees at hand ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Leopold Birkle is one. 

The Chairman. At 1245 H Street NE. ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. At 1245 H Street NE. I measured that distance. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. And I think Thomas Gannon’s saloon is one of 
them there in the square above, on LI Street. 

The Chairman. I do not see that. That will be sufficient for pres¬ 
ent purposes. Those and one or two others, you say ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have it all in this book. With* just a little time 
I can look it up. 

The Chairman. It is sufficient for you to say that that and one or 
two others are within 300 feet of that court. What do you know 
about Snow Court ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Snow Court is familiar to me only by reputation. 
I do not recall ever having been in Snow Court. 

Senator Thompson. Where is that? 


Mr. Shoemaker. It is northwest, around the eras house section. I 
believe. 

The Chairman. Are there some saloons within 300 feet of that 
court? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I understand there are some. 

The Chairman. You might give us the name of one, if you can 
find it. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 99 

Mr. Shoemaker. I should like to ask permission to put it in evidence. 

The Chairman. Very well; put it in the record when you find it. 

(Mr. Shoemaker subsequently made an investigation and reported 
to the chairman that there is no saloon located within 300 feet of 
Snow Court.) 

Senator Jones. If there are any alleys within 300 feet of which 
there should not be saloons, are they not these to which the chairman 
has called your attention ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, but there are some more. 

Senator Jones. Yes; but these have the worst reputation of any 
alleys in the city, have they not ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. And if there is any discretion vested in the board 
which could have been exercised, it should have been exercised in 
connection with these places ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; there are some alleys in the southwest. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any instance where the board has 
refused a license on the ground that a saloon was within 300 feet of a 
slum or alley ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Mr. Chairman, I do not, because the board never 
gave their reasons why they rejected an application, and generally 
when there was an alley in any case, there were other things that 
operated against it, and in no instance can I recall where the board 
said in so many words that they refused the license because of the 
close proximity to an alley. 

The Chairman. Is there anything anywhere requiring the board 
to license the full number of 300 saloons in the District of Columbia ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Absolutely nothing in the law; but the liquor 
men have contended continuously that the law meant that there 
must be 300, and especially when the transfers were made the last 
license year, statements were dropped from time to time to the effect 
that the intention of the law was that there should be 300 saloons. 

The Chairman. I want to insert here the exact language of the law. 
Do you know about where it is ? 

Senator Jones. It is part of paragraph 2, on page 4, and reads 
[reading]: 

In the issuing of licenses for barrooms it shall be the duty of the excise board to 
adopt such a policy as will reduce the number of barrooms, including those in hotels 
and clubs, to not exceeding three hundred by November first, nineteen hundred and 
fourteen. 

The Chairman. So that there is no prohibition there against their 
reducing the number of licenses down to 50, or to 1 ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Absolutely nothing, arid I had occasion to urge 
that upon them many times—that the Jaw provides that there should 
not be more than 300, but under that there may be just as few as 
they choose to make them. 

Senator Thompson. Did the board ever make any expression 
regarding that feature when it was being presented ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; except that they took that provision to 
mean that there must be 300 licenses. 

Senator Jones. Did you ever ask them to call on the corporation 
counsel for an opinion with regard to the meaning of that language ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I never did, in that particular matter. 

Senator Jones. Do you Imow whether or not they ever did call on 
him for any opinion ? 

84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3-8 


100 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Shoemaker. I have no information about it, but I am quite 
sure they did not. 

The Chairman. What do you say regarding the contention that 
if a saloon is improperly authorized it can be discontinued by the 
proper legal proceeding ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. My opinion is that it can be. 

The Chairman. Then why is it that these saloons that are not 
properly authorized have not been proceeded against in the courts ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I will state, Mr. Chairman, that immediately 
after those licenses were granted against which we had these legal 
objections, we took steps to bring prosecutions. We knew that if we 
brought them ourselves directly or through citizens in the upper court, 
these cases would finally go to the court of appeals and there would be 
a long, tedious proceeding, and feeling that we had the sympathy of 
some of the District officials, we went to them and asked that they, the 
District, bring the prosecutions, and the corporation counsel agreed 
to do it and directed one of his assistants to proceed with the prose¬ 
cutions of all these saloons against which there are legal objections, 
on the ground of their being too close to churches or schools, being 
within a residence district, being four on one side of a block, and any 
other case where a license was granted contrary to law. That was 
quite a while ago now, and since that time we have been trying to 
get those cases tried, and are ready to cooperate at any time and fur¬ 
nish all the information, and as far as we have gotten was to get the 
corporation counsel's office, through the commissioners, to instruct 
the District surveyor to make measurements; and when your own 
request, Mr. Chairman, came to the District surveyor, he had already 
under consideration making the measurements. There was some 
difference of opinion between his office and the corporation counsel's 
office as to how they should be made, and that was holding him up. 
The excuse given by the attorney having these matters in charge is 
that he has been so busy with other cases in court that he has not 
had time to take them up. 

The Chairman. You say you felt that if you undertook it indi¬ 
vidually or as an organization it would be long drawn out and expen¬ 
sive ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. It would be an expensive procedure, and we 
want to bring a number of cases, and we felt there was no reason 
why the District, if licenses were illegally granted, should not test 
them out in the court. 

Senator Jones. You could not bring criminal cases, anyhow, 
could you ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, citizens could go and swear out informations 
under the law, and the corporation counsel would have to accept 
them. 

Senator Jones. Why have you not done that in reference to some 
of these licenses granted in residence sections ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Well, we felt that we did not want to do it with¬ 
out we had the cooperation and sympathy of the prosecuting author¬ 
ities. In the crush of business in the police court they would not 
be fairly handled, and we felt that it would be better to have the 
attorney that had been assigned to these cases give his time to it. 
We had confidence that he would do it right, preferring him to some 
others. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 101 

Senator Jones. Do you hold that under the law a licensee in a 
residence district is free from prosecution because he has a license? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No. 

Senator Jones. You hold that under the law, notwithstanding he 
has a license, he can be prosecuted for selling liquor illegally ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. If the license is granted in violation of law it is 
null and void, and no license at all. 

Senator Jones. There are some of these cases, apparently, so 
clear that a prosecutor would have very little to do in establishing 
his case if complaints were made; is not that true? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, it is simply a question of law, as I understand 
it, Senator. 

Senator Jones. Did you think that the law officers of the District 
would not be in favor of pressing the correct construction of the law? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Well, no, I would not say that; but the young 
man who prosecutes in the police court has a very busy life of it 
there, and when I first took the matter up with him he preferred to 
talk to the corporation counsel himself about it, and I was to meet 
him with the corporation counsel, and when I arrived at the corpo¬ 
ration counsel^ office he had been there and gone. I undertood 
that he had told the corporation counsel that he did not care to han¬ 
dle the cases. 

Senator Jones. He told you that ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That is what I gathered from the corporation 
counsel himself. 

Senator Jones. Then why did not you and the corporation counsel 
take it up ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Then I took it up with the corporation counsel, 
and he called another assistant in, and in my presence directed him 
to take these cases into court, and take them to the court of appeals 
if necessary. 

Senator Jones. Well, what was done? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Nothing has been done except to ask the sur¬ 
veyor to make the measurements in the case of churches and schools. 

Senator Jones. Have you made any complaint to them about these 
licenses in residence districts ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. There is no measurement required there ? What 
have they done ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. They have done nothing about it. I have taken 
up with them all these legal objections to granting these licenses, 
with the view to prosecutions. 

Senator Jones. When do you expect that that office down there 
will have time to take these things up ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Well, every^ week it is next week. I have not seen 
them this week. 

Senator Jones. How long is it since they commenced saying that 
it would be next week ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Oh, it has been two months. 

Senator Jones. Mr. Chairman, I want to read into the record par 
graph 12 of this law. It is as follows [reading]: 

Par 12 That any person, company, copartnership, corporation, club, or associa¬ 
tion manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, keeping for sale, trafficking in, barter¬ 
ing exchanging for goods, or otherwise furnishing any intoxicating liquors in the 


102 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


District of Columbia, without first having obtained a license as herein provided, or 
shall manufacture, sell, offer for sale, keep for sale, traffic in, barter, exchange for 
goods, or give away intoxicating liquors in any part, section, or district of the Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia wherein the same is prohibited by law, upon conviction thereof 
shall be fined not less than $250 nor more than $800, and in default in the payment 
of such fine be imprisoned in the District jail or workhouse for not less than two months 
nor more than six months; and upon every subsequent conviction for such offense 
shall, in addition to the penalty named, to wit, a fine of not less than $250 nor more 
than $800, be imprisoned in the workhouse of the District of Columbia not less than 
three months nor more than one year. 

Under that section one or two prosecutions would stop these sales 
in residence districts. I think that they would not have to do any¬ 
thing more than make one or two prosecutions in order to stop them. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I want to say that it is a very difficult matter to 
get convictions in the police court in the District, due partly to the 
system of the two courts—the United States court and the District 
court. The jury is are hard to get hold of. The District has a hard 
time to get the use of the jurors. The defendants demand jury trials 
in all cases, and it is not an easy matter to get convictions. I am 
not especially hopeful about it. 

The Chairman. Speaking of saloons in residence districts, is it not 
a fact that the board has deliberately held that Congress did not intend 
this provision to apply to hotels and clubs in the residence districts ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The board has adopted a rule to that effect. 

The Chairman. So that, although the plain letter of the law is that 
no saloon shall be established in a residence district, without regard to 
whether it is in a club or a hotel or in a private house, the board holds 
that clubs and hotels may have licensed bars in residence districts? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Absolutely. 

The Chairman. I have here a list of clubs that are running saloons 
in residential districts, which is as follows [reading]: 

1. Army and Navy, 1627 I Street NW. 

2. Commercial, 1634 I Street NW. 

3. Century, 815 Vermont Avenue NW. 

4. Eagle, 601 E Street NW. 

5. Elks, 919 H Street NW. 

6. Jolly Fat Men’s, 933 D Street NW. 

7. Metropolitan, 1700 H Street NW. 

8. Monticello, 1301 Fourth Street NW. 

9. National Press, 1420 G Street NW. 

10. University, 900 Fifteenth Street NW. 

11. Washington Saengerbund, 314 C Street NW 

I will ask you if that list is correct ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. As a matter of fact, they are all subject to pun¬ 
ishment under this section just quoted by Senator Jones ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That is my opinion. 

Senator Thompson. Has that matter ever been brought to the 
attention of the board, of the granting of licenses to clubs in residence 
sections ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; we opposed them in the same way. 

The Chairman. You resisted the granting of those licenses on the 
ground that they were in residence districts ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


103 


The Chairman. And also you resisted the granting of licenses to 
some hotels on the ground that they were in residential districts ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. What were those ? Is the Bellevue one of them ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is the Cairo another? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The Cairo is another. 

The Chairman. Is the Powhatan another? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; I think not. 

The Chairman. Do you recall if the Gordon is another—the Gor¬ 
don, on Sixteenth and H Streets? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. How about the Grafton? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The Grafton; yes. 

The Chairman. The Grafton is in a residential district ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I think so. 

The Chairman. Is the Varnum another? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; I think the V arnum is in a nonbusiness section. 

The Chairman. Is the Congress Hall Hotel another ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Did the board ever express a view with reference 
to these residential sections that the chairman has just called your 
attention to, and these licenses in those sections ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; we have talked about that on more than 
one occasion. 

The Chairman. As to both hotels and clubs ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; hotels and clubs. 

The Chairman. To the granting of all of those licenses you ob¬ 
jected, and against them you protested? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; we protested. In every instance, as I re¬ 
call it; we made it a business to do that. 

Senator Jones. What reasons did they give? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That Congress never intended to deny licenses 
to hotels and clubs; that it was an oversight on the part of Congress, 
and that they would supply the omission. 

Senator Jones. Oh, that they would legislate ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. A sort of an annex to Congress ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

(At 1.05 o’clock p. m. the committee took a recess until 3 o’clock 
p. m.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION. 

The special committee reassembled, pursuant to the taking of the 
recess, at 3 o’clock p. m. 

Present: Senators Sheppard (chairman), Thompson, and Jones. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ALBERT E. SHOEMAKER (Resumed). 

Mr. Shoemaker. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I had better touch on 
those rules. 

The Chairman. Do you mean the changes in the law ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 


104 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. I believe a letter that you wrote on the subject was 
read on yesterday by Mr. Wilson. , 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you wish to comment on that letter, or have 
you other variations from the rules besides those mentioned in the 
letter to comment on ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. There are one or two others, I think. 

The Chairman. Here is that letter, for your guidance, in the record 
of yesterday. I will ask you to just discuss those changes in your 
own way. 

Mr. Shoemaker. The first one we objected to was the one in ref¬ 
erence to the granting of licenses for barrooms to be located in hotels 
with less than 50 bedrooms. That rule has permitted the excise board 
to grant licenses to a number of hotels with less than 50 bedrooms. 

Senator Jones. What is the rule ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The rule is that no license shall be issued to a 
hotel, as such, having less than 50 bedrooms for guests. The words 
“as such” were supplied by the board. 

Senator Jones. What is their significance? 

Mr. Wilson. The significance of those words is that a barroom 
license is issued to a hotel of less than 50 rooms, which gives it all 
the privileges of a barroom in a hotel with more than 50 rooms, 
with the possible exception of serving liquors in the bedrooms, and 
we feel that that change in the law, or attempted change in the 
law, by the excise board, has operated to defeat a very important 
feature of the act. 

Senator Jones. Can you give any instances where licenses have 
been granted under that provision, that you contend are really 
granted contrary to law ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; there are several hotels. I gave the list 
to you yesterday. I do not know whether the chairman has it or not. 

The Chairman. Here it is. 

(The list referred to is here printed in full as follows): 

Geo. J. Bessler, 922 Pennsylvania Avenve NW. 

Gustav Buchholz, 1411 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

J. H. De Atley, 1222 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

Harvey Co. (Inc.), 1016 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

Charles Mades, 300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

Henry M. Marks, 1000 E Street NW. 

John Perreard, 513 Thirteenth Street NW. 

Jos. Schladt, 1238 Wisconsin Avenue NW. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I understand that George J. Bessler is running 
a hotel at 922 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., and that J. H. De Atley is 
mainta ning a hotel at 1222 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

Senator Jones. Do you know the names of those hotels ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The De Atley Hotel and Bessler’s. 

Senator Thompson. They are known by those names, are they ? 

Mt. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. What kind of a license have they ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. They have restaurant licenses. 

Senator Jones. Restaurant licenses ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; they are designated by the board as 
restaurants. 

Senator Jones. And they run their places as hotels ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 105 

Mr. Shoemaker. But they are actually hotels, and I should like to 
have the privilege of putting in the record in connection with this, 
the fact that these licensees have hotel licenses from the District 
authorities. 

Then there is the Harvey Co., incorporated. 

Senator Thompson. Is a restaurant license the same as a saloon 
license ? Is it a license to sell liquor ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; under our law restaurants have the privilege 
of selling liquor to women, and the law further provides that they 
may not maintain restaurants and have barroom licenses except 
the board designate them as restaurants. 

Senator Thompson. For instance, take Geyer’s, where there is 
both a saloon and a restaurant. What kind of a license have they 
there ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That is a restaurant having a barroom license. 

Senator Thompson. There is no difference in the charge ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. There is no difference. The license fee is the 
same. 

Senator Thompson. And that is the same kind of license that is 
issued to each of these hotels, is it; as restaurants having barroom 
licenses ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. A restaurant having a barroom license. We 
have the two classes of licenses only—barroom and wholesale. 

Senator Thompson. These hotels have less than 50 rooms ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Less than 50 bedrooms. 

Senator Jones. I want to call the Senator’s attention to the fact 
that there is an express prohibition against issuing a license to a hotel • 
with less than 50 rooms, but they frequently get around that by 
issuing a restaurant license, and they put in the rule the language, as 
Mr. Shoemaker mentioned a moment ago, hotels “as such.” 

Mr. Shoemaker. Charles Mades’s place, 300 Pennsylvania Ave¬ 
nue NW., is licensed as a restaurant. Henry M. Marks’s, 1000 E 
Street NW., has a license for a restaurant. John M. Perreard, 513 
Thirteenth Street NW., has a license for a restaurant. 

Senator Jones. That is, you mean they have barroom licenses as 
restaurants ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. They can run a barroom and have a restaurant 
in connection with it; is that it? 

Mr. Shoemaker. And they run as hotels as well. 

Senator Thompson. When you say “restaurant license,” that 
means that they can have a barroom and then serve to a restaurant 
on the side ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. But the objection you make is that they are 
serving in the hotel? 

Mr. Shoemaker. A hotel with less than 50 rooms. The law pro¬ 
hibits a hotel with less than 50 rooms from having a barroom license 
at all. 

Senator Thompson. When it comes to determining the number of 
saloons you have on a street, do they count those restaurant licenses 
or not ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I think they do. They count them as making 
up the number, but hotels are not counted. 


106 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Thompson. But hotels are not counted ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No, sir. In other words, the hotel has nothing 
to do with the number on a street. 

Senator Thompson. That is a provision of the law itself, is it not ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. Joseph Schladt has a barroom at No. 1238 
Wisconsin Avenue. He is designated as having a restaurant, and 
he maintains a hotel with less than 50 bedrooms. 

The Chairman. Are there any more ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Gustav Buchholz has a license for a hotel at 
No. 1411 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. That is designated by the 
excise board as a restaurant, and it has a barroom license. 

Senator Jones. Do you know whether or not he has a hotel license ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; I am quite sure he has. I have not exam¬ 
ined the records, but it is known as the Occidental Hotel. There 
are probably some others, similar, which have hotel licenses and are 
designated as restaurants and are granted barroom licenses, but I am 
unable to designate them at this time. 

The Chairman. How many are there with less than 50 bedrooms 
that have barroom licenses ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Eight, I think. 

The Chairman. Does that list include the Occidental Hotel ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Not by name ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. It is licensed in the name of Gustav Buchholz, 
1411 Pennsylvania Avenue, and is known as the Occidental Hotel. 
Also, Mr. Chairman, I might give the hotels that were licensed as 
hotels during the last year ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. And also those places that are licensed as clubs. 
They are here. (See page 102.) 

The Chairman. I called those out this morning. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I know that you called the clubs, but not the 
hotels. 

The Chairman. No, not the hotels. Please give a list of the hotels 
in Washington that have barroom licenses, which have more than 
50 bedrooms ? 

Mr. Shoemaker (reading): 


HOTELS. 

1. Bellevue Hotel, Fifteenth and H Streets NW. 

2. Commercial Hotel, 640 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

3. Charles Hotel, 485 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

4. Columbia Hotel Co., Raleigh. 

5. E. S. Cochran, manager, Cochran. 

6. Congress Hall Hotel Co., 233 New Jersey Avenue SE. 

7. Cairo Apartment House Co., 1615 Q Street NW. 

8. Capitol Park Hotel Co., North Capitol and E Streets. 

9. Washington Hotel Co., Continental. 

10. C. W. Edwards, Piedmont, 491 Missouri Avenue NW. 

11. Ebbitt House, Fourteenth and F Streets NW. 

12. Grafton Hotel, 1139 Connecticut Avenue NW., Harrington Mills, proprietor. 

13. Grand Hotel Co., 1426 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

14. Gordon Hotel, 918 Sixteenth Street NW., T. A. McKee, proprietor. 

15. Harrington Hotel Co., 432 Eleventh Street NW., H. Mills, proprietor. 

16. Harris Hotel, 15 Massachusetts Avenue NW. 

17. National Hotel, G. F. Schutt, proprietor. 

18. Powhatan Hotel (Corp.), Powhatan. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


107 


19. Levi Woodbury, St. James Hotel. 

20. Southern Hotel Co., Metropolitan, T. A. McKee, president. 

21. Shoreham Hotel Co., Shorenam, J. Maury Dove, president. 

22. Sterling Hotel Co., Sterling, T. P. Taylor, vice president. 

23. Summit Hotel, 1249 Seventh Street NW., John Windolph, proprietor. 

24. Tremont Hotel, 304 Second Street NW., Mary L. Colton, proprietress. 

25. Hotel Thyson, 1503 Seventh Street NW., John Walsh, proprietor. 

26. Vendome Hotel, 301 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

27. Varnum Hotel, New Jersey Avenue and C Street SE., C. C. Leavens, proprietor. 

28. Willard Hotel Co., Willard. 

The Chairman. I believe it has been brought up there are a num¬ 
ber of these hotels with barroom licenses in residence districts ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What have you to say with reference to the bar¬ 
room in the Grand Hotel ? 

Senator Thompson. There are more than 50 rooms in the Grand 
Hotel ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; that is a large one. A little more than 
two years ago Edward J. Gardiner was the proprietor of the Grand 
Hotel, located at the corner of Fifteenth and Pennsylvania Avenue. 
He had a barroom in connection with his hotel, and! he maintained 
a beer garden in connection with the bar, in the basement. This 
beer garden was frequented by many women, and about that time 
he was arrested, charged with selling or furnishing liquor to a young 
girl, a minor. He was convicted in the police court of dispensing 
liquor, but not selling it. There were two counts, one charging him 
with selling and the other with dispensing. Under the law at that 
time his conviction for selling or dispensing to a minor carried with 
it the penalty of revocation of license. He was convicted of dis¬ 
pensing liquor, and the police court judge held that did not carry 
with it the penalty of revocation oi license. The case was car¬ 
ried to the court of appeals, and the court of appeals reversed the 
lower court and held that the purpose of the law was to prevent 
minors from getting liquor. It did not make any difference whether 
it was dispensed or sold, and upon that ruling the excise board was 
required to revoke the license, and the license was revoked. That 
was the old board, though, under the old law. 

The Chairman. Do you remember the date of that revocation ? 
Mr. Shoemaker. I do not, Senator. I intended to look that up, 
but have not done it. 

The Chairman. At any rate, it was before the present board went 
into office? 

Mr. Shoemaker. It was before the present board came into office, 
and before this present law went into effect. Mr. Gardiner immedi¬ 
ately—or shortly after that—formed a corporation and applied for a 
license for the Grand Hotel. He appeared as the manager and treas¬ 
urer of the corporation, and had a majority of the stock, which gave 
him control. The license was granted to him, as manager, the 
board stating at that time that under the law they could not deny 
the license; that a hotel should always have a license; that it had a 
right under the law to a license. That provision was in the old law. 
The Chairman. This was still the old board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; the old board. When the new board came 
in, the Grand. Hotel Co. was cited to show cause why its license 
should not be refused for the year beginning November 1, 1913. 

The Chairman. Cited by whom ? 


108 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Shoemaker. By the new excise board, of which Mr. Sheehy 
was chairman. 

The Chairman. On whose motion; on the motion of the board 
itself ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I think there was objection made, some protest 
or police report or something was filed against it, and I think the 
board issued a rule to show cause, and we had an extensive hearing at 
that time. The testimony showed the character of the hotel and bar, 
and we urged that the license should be refused, and we cited the his¬ 
tory of the place, and contended that under the new law a hotel could 
be deprived of a license just as any ordinary barroom could be. The 
board, however, granted a license to the Grand Hotel for the year 
beginning November 1, 1913. 

Senator Thompson. This same man Gardiner was at the head of it ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. This same man Gardiner was the manager and 
treasurer. 

The Chairman. And the proprietor of the hotel? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The proprietor of the hotel. 

The Chairman. The same Gardiner, I understand, is a lessee of the 
United States Government? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; the property is owned by the United 
States Government and is leased or rented by the month. 

The Chairman. To Mr. Gardiner ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. To Mr. Gardiner—or to the Grand Hotel Co., I 
suppose, now. The company made application for renewal of 
license for the year beginning November 1, 1914, and upon that 
application the police made an adverse report. This report was made 
by Capt. J. L. Sprinkle, then acting captain of the first precinct, in 
which the place is located. 

The Chairman. At whose instance did the police make a report 
on this case? 

Mr. Shoemaker. At the instance of the excise board. The excise 
board referred all cases to the police for report. 

The Chairman. That is, all renewal cases ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; all renewal cases. 

The Chairman. Do they refer to the police original applications for 
license ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. There is a special blank used. I think 
the blank is printed by the police department; and these blanks are 
filled out by the captain of police. They answer various questions 
in regard to the conduct of the place, the location, etc. I think I 
had better say, however, that this new blank was provided by the 
present excise board. The report I have here. 

Senator Thompson. What is the date of this report? 

Mr. Shoemaker: August 23, 1914. The report says: 

The manager, Edward L. Gardiner, conducts a garden in the basement of this hotel 
where they have music and singing. Dancing allowed on the platform set aside for 
that purpose. This is a resort for streetwalkers and women of questionable character, 
and as a result is a meeting place for men and women. In my opinion these condi¬ 
tion? are objectionable in connection with, a bar, and should be eliminated. 

J. L. Sprinkle, 

Acting Captain , First Precinct . 

This report was called to the attention of the board at the hearing 
upon the application for renewal, and the police, who knew of the 
conditions at the hotel, or some of them at least, were before the 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


109 


board at our request, and testified as to it, substantiating quite fully 
the report of the captain. Prior to the granting of the license I had 
called the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury to this report, 
and inclosed him a copy of it. He kindly acknowledged it and sug¬ 
gested that the matter be presented to the excise board, and that the 
board would handle it. 

I think that is all, Mr. Chairman, in reference to the Grand Hotel, 
unless there is something else you wish to ask. 

The Chairman. They renewed the license of the Grand Hotel in 
spite of this report on the part of the police, did they? 

Mr. Shoemaker. They renewed the license of the Grand Hotel, 
and the Grand Hotel is licensed at this time. 

The Chairman. And it is situated on property owned by the 
United States? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Owned by the United States Government. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether these immoral practices 
still exist ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have no personal knowledge of it, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, except that there are two cases pending against the manage¬ 
ment in the police court, in which it is charged with making sales 
to minors; and I have information that the conditions that have 
been are still prevailing; but I do not know that of my own knowl¬ 
edge, and I guess I had better not speak about it. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any similar conditions in any 
other hotel ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The Marks Hotel at Tenth and E Streets, I am 
informed by the police, is a very objectionable house. 

The Chairman. What police officer told you that? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Lieut. Catts, the head of the vice squad, and 
Detective W. E. Howes, his assistant. I was present with them one 
evening at the hotel, and looked over the dining room. 

The Chairman. This is a hotel with less than 50 rooms ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; it is one of the hotels with less than 50 rooms. 
The vice squad say that it is one of the w T orst places in Washington. 

The Chairman. You say you went into the hotel with some of 
these officers? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; with members of the vice squad. 

The Chairman. Did you see anything out of the ordinary when you 
were in there ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I saw nothing out of the ordinary at that time, 
except men and women drinking together, and the officers pointed 
out to me some whom they knew to be women of bad character, and 
one woman they told me they had taken out of a house which was 
raided under the Kenyon law a week or so previous. 

The Chairman. About when was this ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Oh, it has been two months ago, I should say. 
While I am on that, I might say we went also, on the same night, into 
the Grand Hotel, when I saw a large number of young people, men 
and women, girls and boys—I will not say they were under age, but 
they were young—sitting and drinking in that place. I also went to 
the Philadelphia House, located on Pennsylvania Avenue between 
Third and Four-and-a-half Streets, on the south side. That is a 
place run for colored people solely, and I found that the dining room, 
so called, in the rear of the bar, and elevated above the bar, was 
packed with young men and women almost like sardines in a box. 


110 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Thompson. Colored ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. All colored. 

The Chairman. You say the room above the bar ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. It is a room that is back of the bar, and it is 
elevated above the barroom. You have to go up several little steps 
to get to it. 

The Chairman. Is the Philadelphia House supposed to be a hotel? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No, sir; I do not know whether they run that as 
a hotel or not, but it is designated as a restaurant by the excise board. 

The Chairman. Are there rooms there? 

Mr. Shoemaker. They have rooms upstairs, but I have not any 
knowledge whether they are used as hotel rooms or not. I know I 
was upstairs and saw some of the patrons in the rooms. 

The Chairman. Men and women? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; there were men and women. 

The Chairman. Were there any beds in those rooms ? 

Mr. Shoemaker,. I did not see any beds in those rooms. I saw 
two rooms near the front. I did not notice any beds. People were 
walking around as if it were a reception room of some kind. 

The Chairman. Did you not have occasion to visit the Philadel¬ 
phia House once before ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. With members of the excise board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; I did. 

The Chairman. Describe that visit and give the date of it. 

Mr. Shoemaker. On the Saturday night just previous to the 
granting of the renewals for the year 1914, I was in company with 
two members of the excise board and Mr. Harvey—Hugh F. Har¬ 
vey—and among the 75 places we visited was the Philadelphia 
House. Just about 10 minutes of 12 o’clock, when we were finishing 
the trip, I suggested as we were passing the place that we should 
visit it, the members agreed, and we went over and walked into the 
bar and found it fairly well filled with men, lined up all around the 
wall and at the bar. Mr. Bride and I walked rapidly through the 
bar and to the rear, up two or three steps, and into the dining room 
which I have already referred to. That night it was packed, just as it 
was the second night I saw it. They were serving liquors to women 
without meals or food of any kind, in violation of law. A man and a 
woman who started at the other end of the hall, which was about as 
wide as this room, marched—wormed their way—through the 
crowd, singing, with the piano playing, “This is the Life.” The 
waiters could hardly get in to serve, but they did worm their way 
in somehow. Gen. Smith, the chairman of the board, came up just 
after we did. We could not get in the room; .we just could get to the 
door so that we could look in, and the chairman said after a moment 
or two, “I guess we have seen enough of this. Let us get out.” 
So we went out, and as we were going out the chairman said to me, 
significantly as I thought, “Mr. Shoemaker, we have got to hand it 
to you on this case.” 

Senator Jones. What did you understand by that? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I understood that the board, having seen this, was 
satisfied that no license should be granted further to that place. I 
was surprised, when the list of grants was given out, that the Phila¬ 
delphia House was one among the number. 


EXCISE BOARD OP THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Ill 

The Chairman. Did they attempt to give any excuse for licensing 
that place? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No excuse. They generally give no reason for 
their action. 

Senator Thompson. There was no hearing of that case of the 
renewal ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. We had had the hearing on it. 

The Chairman. When they applied for the renewal was there a 
hearing on the renewal? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; we had a hearing on it. 

The Chairman. And in that hearing you set out what had hap- 
pended theretofore? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; we did not to that extent, because I did not 
have knowledge of it. 

Senator Thompson. I mean, was there no further hearing as to that? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; no further hearing. That was just a week 
before the granting of the license. 

The Chairman. Did you appear at this hearing of October 15? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; but that was the hearing just before we 
visited the place. 

Senator Jones. You visited it just before the present license was 
granted that it is acting under? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; in the latter part of October, 1914. 

The Chairman. When you visited it in the latter part of October, 
1914, did you see any women drinking without meals? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; that is the time I referred to. 

Senator Jones. That is the time he is referring to. 

The Chairman. I thought he was describing the first time it was 
licensed ? 

Senator Jones. No. 

The Chairman. He made two visits. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; but the second one was the visit I made 
with the vice squad, since the last license was granted. 

The Chairman Have you asked for a revocation of that license ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have not. There is no power of the board to 
revoke a license. 

The Chairman. Has the board no power to revoke? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No power except upon conviction. 

Senator Jones. Upon proof of violation of the law? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; upon conviction in the police court. 

The Chairman. Does the law require conviction in the police court 
before the board can revoke a license? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; it requires revocation upon two convictions, 
and the board may revoke upon one conviction. 

The Chairman. Have there been any convictions in the police 
court of saloons for violating the excise law since November ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not know of any. I want to take this occa¬ 
sion, Mr. Chairman, to say something further in that connection, and 
somewhat in response to what Senator Jones said this morning in 
reference to prosecutions in the police court. My attention has 
been called recently to cases that have been pending in the police 
court for months. For instance, one captain of police has recently 
called my attention to a case made in his precinct that has been pend¬ 
ing in the police court since last July. It was made last July and 
has not reached prosecution yet. I had a letter the other day from 
a lady who called my attention to a charge pending in the police 


112 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


court against a hotel for selling to a minor, a girl. That case has 
been pending for months. There are other cases that have been long 
pending in the police court without trial, and how soon they will be 
tried no one knows. 

Senator Jones. I think right there it would be well to insert in the 
hearings paragraph 18 , making it the duty of the corporation counsel 
to prosecute upon complaint. It is as follows [reading]: 

Par. 18. That prosecutions for violations of the provisions of this section shall be 
on information filed in the police court by the corporation counsel of the District of 
Columbia or any of his assistants duly authorized to act for him, and said corporation 
counsel or his assistants shall file such information upon the presentation to him or 
his assistants of sworn information that the law has been violated; and such corpora¬ 
tion counsel and his assistants shall have power to administer oaths to such informant 
or informants, and such others as present themselves, and anyone making a false oath 
to any material fact shall be deemed guilty of perjury and subject to the same penalties 
as now provided by law for such offense. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Would it be of any interest to the committee to 
have a list of the cases pending and the time they have been pending ? 

The Chairman. We would be very glad to have that. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I will try to get it. 

(The list referred to was subsequently submitted to the committee 
and is here printed in full, as follows:) 

List of cases charging violation of the excise law pending in the police court Feb. 27,1915 . 


No. 

Name. 

Charge. 

Date of 
charge. 


JURY TRIALS. 



445805 

George Nesline. 

Violation liquor law. . 

Oct. 28,1914 
Nov. 27,1914 
Nov, 5,1914 

447716 

Charles H. Fred (Grand Hotel). 

Selling liquor to minors. 

446341 

Thomas Taylor.... 

Selling liquor to minor . . 

441099 

James Cunningham. 

Unlicensed bar. 

Aug. 24J914 
Mar. 9,1914 
July 13,1914 
Jan. 20.1915 

430200 

William Calloway. 

Violation excise law. . 

438448 

Henry Turner .....'. . 

Unlicensed bar. 

450675 

Geo. W. Manogue, trading as Manogue 

Violation excise law; selling to minor ... 


& Jones. 


445146 

George Hillbus. 

Unlicensed bar 

Oct. 19,1914 
Aug. 22,1914 

440998 

Alexander L. MacLennan. 

Selling liquor on Sunday . 



439902 


.do. 

Aug. 5,1914 
May 20,1914 
Feb. 1,1915 
Jan. 25,1915 
Feb. 8 1915 

434794 

William I. Robertson. 

Violation excise law. 

4513-52 

W. Grace Allen. 

Unlicensed bar.. 

450936 

Zora Brown. 


451757 

Patrick J. Wholohan. 


439299 

Ida Johnson. 


July 27’ 1914 
July 30,1914 
Feb. 22,1915 

439485 

Annie Wilson. 


452540 

Edward Mulhall. 

Violation excise law.. 


CONTINUED. 


452184 

Charles D. Groat. 

Violation excise law; continued to Mar. 

Feb. 16,1915 



2, 1915. 

452551 

Charles W. Gray. 

Violation excise law; continued to Mar. 

Feb. 22,1915 



10,1915. 



CONTINUED INDEFINITELY. 



439258 

Josephine Dennis. 

Unlicensed bar 

July 27,1914 
Oct. 9,1914 
Sept. 24,1914 
Nov. 5,1914 
Mar. 9,1914 
May 7,1914 
May 20,1915 
July 5,1913 
Sept.15,1913 
Nov. 3,1913 
Jan. 18,1915 
Jan. 16,1915 
Dec. 9,1914 
Dec. 9,1914 
Feb. 16,1915 

444238 

Wafter Costello. 

Violation excise law. 

443396 

John E. Simons. 


446340 

Geo. M. Hobitzell. 

Giving lic.uor to minors 

430199 

George Buckman. 

Violation excise law. 

434053 

JohxfStephens. 


434808 

John McCormick. 

Giving liquor to minor 

414378 

Henry Johnson. 

Violation excise law- 

418750 

Edgar Holton. 


422195 

Mary O. Woodward. 


450407 

450408 

Chas. H. Fred (Grand Hotel). 

.do. 

Violation excise law; selling to minor ... 

448389 

Henry Young. 

Giving liquor to minors . 

448388 

George AValson (alias Geo. Wall). 

Violation excise law. 

452186 

Michael Quinlan. 





February 27,1915. 

F. A. Sebring, 

Cleric Police Court, District of Columbia. 














































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 113 

Senator Thompson. They do not try those cases with a jury in the 
police court here ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; most of the licensees demand jury trials, 
and the cases sometimes go over for a year, and witnesses die or 
move away, and there is trouble always. 

Senator Thompson. Ordinarily a police-court case is tried without 
a jury. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; but here a defendant has a right to demand a 
jury trial; that is, not in all cases. There are some minor cases that 
are tried without a jury, but in liquor cases they have that right. 
That is all, I think, on that. 

The Chairman. What did you observe in your inspection trip 
when you say you visited 75 places ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Mr. Chairman, I may say that at my suggestion 
the commission made that inspection. There was no inspecting 
being done by the inspector. 

Senator Thompson. Who was in that party ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The party consisted of Gen. Smith, the chairman 
of the excise board, Mr. Bride, and Mr. Hugh Harvey and myself. 
There were no inspections being made by the inspector of the board,, 
and, so far as I knew, the board when it looked at places generally 
saw them during the day, and I said, “If you want to see conditions, go 
at night, especially on a Saturday night. Go among the saloons that are 
largely patronzied by the colored people and see for yourselves what is 
going on.” The suggestion was made by Mr. Bride that I go with 
them, and the other gentlemen would not agree that I should go with¬ 
out Mr. Harvey should go along, and the party was thus made up. 

We first went up Fourteenth Street and visited the saloons, or 
many of them, up around U Street. We found those we went into 
largely, some of them almost entirely, patronized by colored people. 
Then passing down Fourteenth Street we went to Georgetown and 
saw the saloons on M Street, where there were many within a 
few blocks. Among them were two saloons at the bridge, which 
are in the western dry zone, about which there is now a contest in the 
courts. The saloons along that street were mainly for colored peo¬ 
ple, apparently. There were crowds of them in them, and in some 
white and some colored men, standing at the bar drinking together, 
and conditions in some of them were to my mind bad; and three of 
th e p laces lost their licenses. 

We then came down to Ninth Street and looked at the^ saloons 
south of Pennsylvania Avenue on Ninth Street; then went up Ninth 
Street and then crossed to Seventh Street and went down Seventh 
Street, beginning at Rhode Island Avenue at the mile limit around 
the Soldiers’ Home. Coming down we took in nearly all the saloons 
on that street. Most of those saloons were crowded with negroes 
and conditions in many of them were bad. 

Senator Jones. When you say conditions were bad that does not 
convey anything to us. What were the conditions ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Well, in one of the saloons we went into, one kept 
by Mr. Xander on Seventh Street near Rhode Island Avenue, we 
found that he had two apartments, one apparently retail and the 
other wholesale. We met the proprietor at the door and walked back 
through the bar quickly and started through the door leading into 
the wholesale side. As we went, a number of men came rushing 


114 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


through, wiping their mouths, and when we got in there we saw that 
a party had been disturbed. Behind the barrels, on a table, were 
glasses, some filled with beer and some partly filled and some empty. 
One glass of beer was sitting upon a barrel. They had just dropped 
them wherever they had them. As we went out the chairman met 
the proprietor—I was close with him—and he said, “Last time I was 
in here I told you not to do that any more,” and the man started to 
explain, and the chairman said, “No explanations,” and his remark 
further was to the effect that he would lose his license. He did not 
use those words. 

The Chairman. What was it he told him not to do any more? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Serve liquors in the wholesale department, to 
be drunk on the premises, behind the barrels, away off there. 

The Chairman. The license was renewed—was granted? 

Mr. Shoemaker. It was granted. We went down and came to 
two places, one kept by Daly and one by Plugge. Both of those 
places were mentioned this morning. They are right together on 
the east side of Seventh Street, and within the prescribed distance 
of the Church of the Immaculate Conception, on N Street. When we 
went into Mr. Plugge’s saloon, it was crowded with negroes. Liquor 
was being drawn from barrels for them; some were drinking at the 
bar, and there was general rush and confusion. We stood there 
a moment or two and then quickly went into the saloon next door. 
There was a similar crowd in there, considerable disorder and confu¬ 
sion, and half drunken negroes—they were all colored people—and 
after we had been in there a minute and whilst talking to the propri¬ 
etor in rushed, I suppose, 20 or 25 young colored men, and the 
proprietor, evidently embarrassed, rushed to the door and tried to 
keep them out, but they did not understand what he meant by it, 
and for an instant I thought there would be a riot, and some of 
them went out and some of them came in. 

The Chairman. You say this was a wholesale place? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; a retail bar. 

The Chairman. Why was it that they could not come in there ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Well, I do not know. I suppose the proprietor 
did not want them all coming in there when the members of the excise 
board were present. 

Senator Thompson. Were they minors ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I could not say that they were minors. They 
were young, and they had been drinking, and were noisy and boister¬ 
ous, and I suppose the proprietor did not want it to appear that he 
was permitting that class to come in his place. 

I want to go back up Seventh Street to a place kept by 
O’Hanlon—no, not O’Hanlon. Well, it is known as the Thyson 
House, on the corner of Seventh and P Streets. The barroom 
entrance is the second door from the corner. Across the street from 
the barroom on P Street begins a group of public schools. There are 
two graded schools right across the street on P Street and the Central 
High School is farther on. That saloon seemed to be for negroes only, 
and they were of a pretty rough looking appearance when we went 
in it. 

This building had been added to, just prior to the granting of the 
license, to make enough rooms, apparently, to have it classed as a 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 115 

hotel, and it is classed as a hotel and licensed as a hotel, and a hotel 
for white people, the barroom in it being patronized almost entirely 
by colored people. At the hearing on the application for renewal 
of license, the teachers of the schools were present, protesting and 
earnestly pleading with the board not to grant a license for that 
place, just across the street, within full view, I suppose within 60 
feet, of one of the schools. 

Senator Jones. Why was not that shut out? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Because it was a hotel of 50 rooms. 

Senator Jones. Fifty rooms ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. What is the name of the place ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The Thyson House. 

The Chairman. Do many guests stop there as regular guests of 
the hotel ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. We were unable to find that many guests stopped 
there as regular guests of the hotel. It seems that some people live 
there as roomers by the month. 

Senator Jones. The main business there seems to be the running 
of that bar? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Of that barroom, yes, sir; and my theory in 
fighting that place was that they simply added some rooms there 
for the purpose of having it considered a hotel. 

Senator Thompson. Did you mention that place in the list this 
morning, as being within 400 feet of a school ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No, sir; because it is licensed as a hotel having 
50 or more rooms. 

Senator Jones. You speak about additions being put on ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Made since this law went into effect. 

Senator Jones. The additions have been made since this law went 
into effect, apparently to comply with the law ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. Of course, if they did not have 50 rooms 
they would not have any chance to remain there in such close prox¬ 
imity to a school. 

Senator Jones. How many rooms did they have ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not know, Senator. There are quite a 
number. 

Senator Jones. Are those additions of wood or brick ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. They are brick, and in good condition. 

Senator Jones. It appears now that these additions have been 
made since the law was passed ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Was there a police report made on this place when 
the license was renewed ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Oh, yes. 

The Chairman. Did you see it ? • 

Mr. Shoemaker. I saw it. I do not recall anything especially 
against it, though, from the police. 

The Chairman. Does that finish in regard to your trip ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That does not finish it. We went out H Street 
NE., and viewed the saloons out there, and found most of them there 
patronized largely by the colored people, and I emphasize that be¬ 
cause we made a special plea to the board not to grant so many 
saloons for colored people in colored residence neighborhoods. A 

84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3-9 


116 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

large and influential body of the leaders of the colored people here, 
ministers and lawyers and doctors, asked through us for a special hear¬ 
ing. A hearing was granted, at which they made most strenuous 
protests against the granting of licenses in neighborhoods where their 
people lived, claiming that saloons were a great detriment to their 
uplift work among them. I was anxious that the board should see 
those saloons which catered especially to the colored people. My 
observation is that at least two-thirds of the saloons in this city 
outside of the extreme down-town section could not exist were it not 
for their colored patronage. 

The Chairman. Two-thirds of the saloons outside of the down¬ 
town districts ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir; could not exist without their colored 
patronage. 

The Chairman. Do you mean to state, Mr. Shoemaker, that the 
saloons are especially numerous in the colored sections ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; in the sections that are largely residential 
colored sections. 

For instance, on Four-and-a-half Street SW., the board, during 
the transfer period, I think, located or relocated on that street seven 
or eight or nine saloons, and we found that most of those saloons had 
a very large colored patronage. We claimed and urged before the 
board that that was a residence section; that while there were some 
blocks on that street that were devoted to business, very small business, 
yet to the east and west of the street it was solidly built up with homes 
of many poor colored people and the poorer class of white people; and 
we urged upon the board that there would be no improvement in that 
section if these saloons off of Four-and-a-half Street, in residence sec¬ 
tions, were moved a few blocks into Four-and-a-half Street; and I 
am convinced that there has been no great improvement in that sec¬ 
tion, that these saloons are right there in easy reach of these people. 
We feel that the law has been circumvented by the granting of licenses 
so close to them. 

The Chairman. What proportion of the citizenship of the District 
is colored? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Approximately one-third of it, I think, is col¬ 
ored. 

The Chairman. And you think that more than one-half of the 
saloons cater especially to colored trade ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That is my information and belief. 

The Chairman. More than one-half of the saloons in the entire 
District ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. And two-thirds of those outside of the downtown 
district ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; and many of them are patronized almost 
exclusively by the colored people. 

The Chairman. Many of the saloons are patronized almost ex¬ 
clusively by colored people ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. By colored people. 

The Chairman. Very well; go ahead. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I made some notes of this trip that we had 
at that time; brief notes, just memoranda, and at the request of the 
board I furnished them with what I saw with them on that occasion. 

Senator Jones. Have you those notes here now ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 117 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have not. I have just the names of the saloons; 
the names of the saloons that we visited. 

Senator Jones. You have not the memoranda? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have not the memoranda. That was written 
at the office of the board, and I have not a copy of it. 

Senator Thompson. That was written out there? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The statement I made I dictated to Mr. Hibbs at 
the office of the board, and I did not retain a copy of it. It is filed 
with their records, I think. 

Mr. Chairman, I think that is all I care to say on that point. 

The Chairman. Regarding that trip ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Very well. What do you know as to violations 
of the law as to wholesale houses ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The rule of the board, gentlemen, provides that 
wholes alers- 

The Chairman. It is paragraph 1. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; it provides that wholesale licenses may be 
granted in residential districts and on residential streets, provided 
that not more than 5 gallons is sold at one time. 

The Chairman. That provision, however, does not appear in the 

law 

Mr. Shoemaker. It does not appear in the law. It is, in my 
judgement, an arbitrary construction and a rule adopted without 
any justification. 

Senator Jones. A sort of supplementary legislation? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Supplementary legislation is a good term. Those 
who sell in quantities of 5 gallons or more must not be licensed in 
residence districts under that rule, but there are only 12 of that class. 

The Chairman. They are all in the downtown district, are they 
not? 

Mr. Shoemaker. They are jobbers—not all, because breweries take 
out the wholesale license. There are 12 altogether, as I remember, 
counting the four breweries. 

The Chairman. Are the breweries in the residence section ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. They are. 

The Chairman. Were their licenses protested? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. On that account? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. What was the reply of the board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Nothing was said at all. They simply said 
nothing about it. 

Senator Thompson. How many wholesale licenses are there, do you 
know, altogether, in the city ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. There are 95, now, I think. 

The Chairman. As such, under the holding of the board? Under 
the holding of the board there are only 10 or 12 wholesale houses? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; 10 or 12. 

The Chairman. In the District ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Under the law there are, I think, 95 wholesale 
licenses at this time, altogether; 12 of them, as I recall, are issued to 
jobbers or brewers. The rest of them are to licensees to sell in 
quantities under 5 gallons. | 


118 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. On the books of the board they do not appear as 
wholesalers, do they? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Those who sell under 5 gallons ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I see. They consider them wholesalers, but per¬ 
mit them to sell in residence districts, yet they sell less than 5 gallons ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. And provided they sell in sealed packages ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. And they seal the package? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; and they seal the package. Their rule as 
to sealed packages is I think, erroneous. 

Senator Jones. What is it ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have it here, on page 17. It is as follows 
[reading]: 

Sec. 15. Under a wholesale liquor license intoxicating liquors shall be sold in 
sealed packages only and each package shall contain not less than one quart; except 
that any sealed original or bonded package containing not less than approximately 
one pint may be sold. 

A “sealed original” package comprehends a package not filled at the time of sale, 
but one carried in stock, whether filled on the premises of the licensee or elsewhere. 

My objection to that is that language, “sealed original” package. 
They have left out the word “ bonded,” as the law has it. 

Senator Jones. I think it would be well to read into the record right 
there the provision of the law with reference to wholesalers. It is as 
follows [reading]: 

A wholesale liquor license shall authorize the licensee to sell intoxicating liquors in 
sealed packages only and in quantities not less than one quart in the aggregate, except 
in sealed original or bonded package in quantity not less than approximately a pint, 
and not to be drunk on the premises where sold; and no wholesale license shall be 
granted mitil it is satisfactorily shown that the place where it is intended to carry on 
such business is properly arranged for selling such liquors as merchandise. 

The Chairman. Mr. Shoemaker, are any of these wholesale liquor 
houses that sell under five gallons violating the spirit of the law, and 
do they become really places where liquors are sold indiscriminately ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have no knowledge, Mr. Chairman, that these 
wholesalers are selling liquor to be drunk on the premises. The 
advantage they have, however, over the barroom is that they are 
licensed in strictly residential communities and they may sell to 
women, while a barroom may not. Women go in. I have seen them 
go in and come out with these so-called sealed jars. 

The Chairman. Into what place have you seen a woman go and 
bring out a sealed jar ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. There were one or two places on my rounds that 
I saw when I was making measurements and inspections. 

The Chairman. Name them. 

Mr. Shoemaker. There was a place kept by a man by the name of 
Cohen—I think it is Cohen—up northwest. I can not at this minute 
locate it. I saw women in there coming out with bottles and jars. 

Senator Jones. What kind of jars ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Well, preserving jars. 

Senator Jones. Fruit jars ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Fruit jars; yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Did you see them go in carrying those fruit jars? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


119 


Mr. Shoemaker. I did not see them go in there, but I saw them 
coming out. I saw in Frank P. Hall’s saloon, before it was closed— 
the day we were there inspecting the place and making measure¬ 
ments—a colored woman go in the alley entrance at that place with 
a jar, and I waited for her to come out, and she came out with a pack¬ 
age covered with a paper bag, and I stopped her and asked her what 
she had, and she said u Nothing.” I took; hold of the jar and opened 
the paper sufficiently to see that it was apparently a jar of beer. It 
was a fruit jar with a screw top, filled with beer. 

The Chairman. Is there any difference between the amount 
charged for the license for a wholesale place selling under five gallons 
and that charged for a regular barroom license ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. There is no difference. The license is $800 in 
each case. 

Senator Jones. You misunderstood the chairman. He said in a 
barroom. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; the barroom license fee is $1,500 and the 
wholesaler pays only $800. 

Senator Jones. There is no difference in the fee of the wholesalers, 
where they sell under and where they sell over 5 gallons? 

Mr. Shoemaker. There is no difference in the fee at all. 

The Chairman. In other words, the brewer pays $800 ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. The wholesaler is not supposed to retail in any 
quantity ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. He can retail in as small a package as a pint. 

Senator Jones. But a quart in the aggregate? 

Mr. Shoemaker. A quart in the aggregate. But they do sell, as a 
matter of fact, in pints. 

Senator Thompson. In the original package? How is that? 

Mr. Shoemaker. In pints. 

The Chairman. And they sell in any quantity under 5 gallons, do 
they not ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; they can sell in any quantity under 5 gal¬ 
lons. I will say this as a matter of information as to why the amount 
was fixed at less than 5 gallons. The dealer may sell in quantities of 
4J gallons by paying the Government revenue tax of $25. 

Senator Thompson. Any dealer? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Any dealer. The United States Government 
taxes him $25 if he sells in quantities of not more than 4J gallons. 
If he sells more than 4J gallons, he pays $100. 

Senator Thompson. The Government considers him a wholesaler 
if he sells over 4 J gallons, and a retailer if he sells under 4J gallons ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. In other words, this board really authorizes a retail 
trade under the name of wholesale trade ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. But the Government simply fixes this amount for 
the purpose of determining its tax ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Absolutely. 

The Chairman. And there is absolutely no permit about it at all ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. And there is nothing in this law which makes pro¬ 
vision for a limit of 5 gallons ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Nothing in the law at, all. 


120 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

The Chairman. But the excise board has taken it on itself to really 
license these people in the residence districts to sell in quantities of 
less than 5 gallons; to license them to operate in reality a retail per¬ 
sonal trade under the guise of wholesale trade ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That is the effect of it. 

The Chairman. Do you not understand it that way ? 

Senator Jones. I think that is the effect of it. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether any of these so-called whole¬ 
sale houses in residence districts sell to other dealers any liquors, or 
whether they sell to immediate consumers ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. In almost every instance to immediate consumers. 

The Chairman. What do you know as to minors entering these 
wholesale houses ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Mr. Chairman, a rule of the board permits minors 
to enter places where liquor is sold at wholesale under the wholesale 
license, provided the dealer segregates his liquors and puts up a little 
railing so that the minor can not get up in direct contact with the 
liquors. 

Senator Thompson. That is another evasion of the law by the 
rules, is it not ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. There is nothing in the law that provides for that 
condition. 

Senator Thompson. That is another attempt to fence out the law ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That is another attempt to fence out the law. 
The reason I spoke about that is that the excuse given is that cer¬ 
tainly there was no intention to prevent minors from entering grocery 
stores where liquor is sold. 

Senator Thompson. The board places that construction on the law ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; they say that that was another oversight. 

Senator Thompson. And they are simply supplying a defect? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; they are simply supplying a defect, so that 
they require a little rail 2 or 3 feet high. I have seen some of those 
rails, and to my mind they are the most ridiculous things I have seen 
in connection with the traffic. They are absolutely useless, and to 
my mind that rail has a tendency to attract the attention of minors 
who go into grocery stores. I have seen them myself in stores, 
looking up at the clerk who was back behind the rail, watching him 
handing out packages to customers; a boy sees it and is not per¬ 
mitted to go inside, but is right up against the railing, and the effect 
is worse than under the old way. 

Senator Thompson. It calls the direct attention of the minor to 
what is going on ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. To what is going on. 

Senator Thompson. Outside the railing? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; I consider that rule an inexcusable make¬ 
shift. 

There is another thing, Mr. Chairman, I will mention, unless you 
have something else to ask me. 

The Chairman. No; go ahead. 

Mr. Shoemaker. It is something in connection with the rules 
that I will call your attention to. 

Senator Jones. Before you go on would it not be well to read right 
into the record, in connection with your statement regarding minors, 
the provision of the law with reference to minors being in these 
places ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


121 


Mr. Shoemaker. I think it would be a good idea. 

Senator Jones. I have a provision here, and you can tell me 
whether this is the only place in which there is a provision in regard 
to it. This is under paragraph 6 [reading!: 

That no minor under the age of eighteen years shall be allowed to enter or permitted 
to remain in any place where intoxicating liquors are sold, other than a hotel, restau¬ 
rant, or club. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I think that is the only reference in the law to 
that matter, Senator. 

Senator Thompson. Did I understand there are numerous grocery 
stores and wholesale houses and places of that kind where they permit 
the minor to go, providing he stays outside a certain railing ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. These railings are up, I suppose, in all the 
stores. They are very exact about requiring that railing; hut those 
railings that I have seen are very trifling; just a little gateway and a 
railing. It is no protection, in my judgment. Some of these whole¬ 
salers sell liquors in connection with groceries and others do not. 
There are a number of houses selling under 5 gallons, selling nothing 
but liquors 

Senator Jones. The board has kindly tried to supplement con¬ 
gressional legislation in that respect also ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; in that respect, also. They have supple¬ 
mented it in some other respects, too. The law fixes the opening 
hour for saloons at 7 o’clock in the morning. The board says they 
may open at 6.45, not for the purpose of selling, but for the purpose 
of cleaning up, or things of that kind. 

Senator Jones. Getting ready to sell? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. They are afraid they may lose a minute or two? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. They have a regulation of that kind ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. It is on page 18. 

Senator Jones. I wish you would kindly read that regulation. 

Mr. Shoemaker. This reads [reading]: 

Sec. 18. (a) For the purpose of cleaning up and doing other necessary work, 
licensed premises may be entered or occupied by licensees and their regular employ¬ 
ees between 6.45 o’clock a. m. and 7 o’clock a. m., except on Sundays and Inaugu¬ 
ration Day; and between the hours of 10 o’clock a. m. and 12 o’clock noon on Sundays 
and Inauguration Day: Provided , That neither said licensees nor their employees 
shall drink, sell, give away, or dispense any intoxicating liquors during the times 
mentioned. 

Senator Thompson. Now, read the section of the law regarding 
opening at 7 o’clock. 

Senator Jones. That is paragraph 6. They are probably techni¬ 
cally within the law on this. This is on page 7 [reading]: 

Par. 6. That under the license issued in accordance with this section no intoxi¬ 
cating liquors shall be sold, given away, or in any way disposed of to any minor, 
intoxicated person, or habitual drunkard, and ignorance of the age of any such minor 
shall not be a defense to any action instituted under this section; and no licensee 
under this section shall sell, give away, or dispense any intoxicating liquors to any 
person between the hours of 1 o’clock a. m. and 7 o’clock a. m., nor on Sundays or 
Inauguration Day; and between said hours and on Sundays and Inauguration Day 
every barroom and other place where intoxicating liquors are sold shall be kept closed. 

The latter part of that shuts them out on opening at 7 o’clock. 


122 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Shoemaker. And yet the board permits them to open before 
7 o’clock, and on Sunday for two hours, when under the old law it 
was a serious offense to even open on Sunday for any purpose. 

Senator Jones. It is under this law. 

Mr. Shoemaker. It is so, I say. 

Senator Jones. What excuse do they give for allowing them to 
open two hours on Sunday ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The same excuse; omission. Congress did not 
intend it. I have been informed—I have had complaints made to 
me—that the dealers have taken advantage of this rule which is 
referred to, and that they are serving customers before 7 o’clock in 
the morning. 

Senator Thompson. How about on Sunday? Did you ever hear 
of any Sunday violations ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have not heard of any Sunday violations. 

Senator Jones. It is pretty safe to say that if they are open there 
is something being done. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else now, Mr. Shoemaker ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I want to call your attention also to section 20 of 
the rules and regulations, at page 18. Preliminarily, I want to say 
that the law provides that in case of the death of a licensee the bar¬ 
room or the wholesale place may be continued to be operated for 30 
days after the death, during which time the license may be trans¬ 
ferred; but there is no provision in the law which permits receivers or 
trustees in bankruptcy to operate a place. 

Senator Jones. Can you not find the provision in the law so as to 
read it into the record here, so there may be no question about its 
terms ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. It is on page 10, Senator, paragraph 15, 
the latter part of it. 

Senator Jones. Just read it, so that it will go into the record. I 
will read it Treading]: 

Provided further, That the personal representative of any deceased licensee may 
within 30 days after the death of such licensee transfer said license in accordance with 
the provisions of this law touching transfers of licenses. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. That is the latter part of paragraph 15. 

Mr. Shoemaker. The rule provides that: “Except in case of the 
death of a licensee any person or persons duly authorized by the 
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia may, with the consent in 
writing of the excise board, conduct the business of a licensee for a 
period of not exceeding 60 days. In such cases posting of the licensed 
premises shall not be required.” 

Senator Thompson. They have made it 30 days ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. It is 60 days. There is no provision in the law 
for court officials, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers to run the 
business. The only provision is that read by Senator Jones, in caso 
of the death of a licensee. 

Senator Thompson. I understand. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Then they may do so for 30 days only? 

Senator Thompson. They have raised it to 60 days ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Not 60 days in the case of the death of a licensee, 
but 60 days in the case of trustees in bankruptcy or receivers or 
other court officials. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 123 

Senator Thompson. There is no provision in the law at all about 
that? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No provision in the law at all about that. 

The Chairman. In other words, in order to comply with the law 
if any of these officials desire a license, they should make application 
in the regular way ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. In the regular way. 

The Chairman. That is a clear case of legislation by the board. 

Mr. Shoemaker. My reading of the law on the subject of trustees 
in bankruptcy and receivers and other officials is that they have 
no authority to engage in the liquor business without a license. 
There is another provision, Mr. Chairman, that I guess I had better 
read also. 

Senator Jones. Yes; then there can not be any doubt about 
what it is. 

Senator Thompson. You might state in a general way what it is. 

Mr. Shoemaker. This is section 21, paragraph f. It provides that 
barrooms shall have but one entrance from the street. 

The Chairman. The provision is as follows [reading]: 

Sec. 21. (/) Only one entrance to a barroom from the street, which entrance shall 
be the one mentioned in his, her, or its application for license, is permitted; and 
no other entrance to said barroom from any street, or from any public or private 
alley or passageway outside of the building in which a barroom license is granted, 
shall be used or allowed unless the excise board shall specially permit an extra entrance 
upon written application therefor by a licensee. 

Mr. Shoemaker. You are reading from the rule, now? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. The law provides that there shall be only one 
entrance, except that the board may grant an extra entrance. 
In the annual report of the board which is before you, I believe, they 
set out that there were 39 applications for extra entrances, and 
all of them except one were granted. We have contended that 
while in some instances there may be special reasons why an extra 
entrance should be granted, yet generally speaking there can be no 
good reason, except of course to increase trade. Up to a short time 
ago they were permitting two entrances to places on a corner, one on 
either street. 

Senator Jones. Now, I will read the provision of the law. It is 
part of paragraph 14, on page 10 [reading]: 

Nor shall any barroom licensee establish more than one bar under his license, and 
the sale or dispensing of liquors, except in case of hotels, restaurants, and clubs, 
shall be confined to the room in which said bar is located; nor provide or permit to 
be used more than one entrance to said barroom from the street, which entrance 
shall be the one mentioned in his application for license, unless the excise board 
shall especially permit an extra entrance. 

Senator Thompson. In all these places where they have a saloon 
and a restaurant in connection, they use an entrance into the barroom 
and also an entrance into the restaurant ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. So that, I suppose, there could be an enter¬ 
ing either way. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. You say there have been 39 applications for addi¬ 
tional entrances, and all have been granted except one ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. According to the last annual report of the excise 
board. You have that here. 


124 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. I have it here. Can you put your hand on the para¬ 
graph referred to ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I will read from the annual report of the excise 
board of the District of Columbia for 1914, page 11 [reading]: 

Another matter which required much attention from the board concerned the 
requests by barroom licensees for permission to maintain extra entrances to their bar¬ 
rooms. Here, too, the board saw to it that no action was taken except after inspec¬ 
tion of the applicant’s premises. 

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1914, 39 requests for permission to maintain 
such extra entrances were presented to the board, of which 38 were granted and 1 was 
refused. 

(The complete list which has been referred to by Mr. Shoemaker 
is here printed in full, as follows:) 

Classification of Barroom Licenses. 


RESTAURANT DESIGNATIONS. 

1. John J. Allen, 807 North Capitol 

Street. 

2. Eliz. Atzel, 1219 New York Avenue 

NW. 

3. Geo. J. Bessler, 922 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW. 

4. Jas. W. Brown, Bennings Road. 

5. Gus Brahler, 410 E Street NE. 

6. John E. Bonini, 729 North Capitol 

Street. 

7. Gustav Buchholz, 1411 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW. 

8. Stephen K. Coster, 209 Seventh Street 

NW. 

9. Capital Consolidated Co., Fifteenth 

and U Streets NW. 

10. Vincent Castelli, 502 Ninth Street 

NW. 

11. Wm. Doyle, 1218 Wisconsin Avenue 

NW. 

12. Chas. Dietz, sr., 511 Seventh Street 

NW. 

13. Chas. W. Dismer, 708 K Street 

NW. 

14. J. H. DeAtley, 1222 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW. 

15. Wm. J. Edelin, 2348 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW. 

16. Frank Endres, 1015 I Street NW. 

17. Chas. A. Eckstein, 1412 New York 

Avenue NW. 

18. Wm. A. Engel, 1335 E Street NW. 

19. E. E. Farley, 415 Thirteenth Street 

NW. 

20. Ernst Gerstenberg, 1343 E Street NW. 

21. F. H. Geyer Co., 1827 Fourteenth 

Street NW. 

22. P. D. Washington, 636 D Street NW. 

23. Wm. A. Hettinger, 415 Eighth Street 

NE. 

24. Fritz Herzog, 1115 E Street NW. 

25. Emma Hennige, 1421 H Street NE. 

26. Rudolph Haenisch, 643 D Street 

NW. 

27. Harvey Co. (Inc.). 1016 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW. 

28. Peter L. Keyser, 429 Eighth Street 

NW. 


re staurant designations— continued. 

29. Anna A. E. Klotz, 1708 G Street NW. 

30. Patrick J. Lynch, 907 Seventh Street 

NW. 

31. John E. Mergner, 415 East Capitol 

Street. 

32. Charles Mades, 300 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW. 

33. Edw. Mannix, 3059 M Street NW. 

34. Thos. R. Marshall, 1323 F Street NW. 

35. Henry M. Marks, 1000 E Street NW. 

36. Frank C. Poch, 900 Four-and-a-half 

Street SW. 

37. John M. Perreard, 513 Thirteenth 

Street NW. 

38. E. C. E. Ruppert, 1716 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW. 

39. Rauscher’s (Inc.), 1036 Connecticut 

Avenue. 

40. C. Martin Schneider, 416 Twelfth 

Street NW. 

41. Theo G. Stoner, 206 Seventh Street 

NW. 

42. Mary^A. Solan, 1003 Seventh Street 

43. Stoneleigh Court, 1019 Connecticut 

Avenue. 

44. Jos. Schladt, 1238 Wisconsin Avenue. 

45. R. L. Steinhardt, 417 Eleventh Street 

NW. 

46. Milton L. Schmidt, 702 Seventh 

Street NW. 

47. Samuel A. Taylor, 212 Ninth Street 

NW. 

48. Mary E. Thomas, 711 O Street NW. 

49. Theodore Walter, 1001 C Street SE. 

50. Washington Terminal Union Station. 

51. Frank Wolf, 512 Twelfth Street NW. 

HOTELS. 

1. Bellevue Hotel, Fifteenth and H 

Streets NW. 

2. Commercial Hotel, 640 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW. 

3. Charles Hotel, 485 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW. 

4. Columbia Hotel Co., Raleigh. 

5. E. S. Cochran, manager, Cochran. 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


125 


Classification of Barroom Licences— Continued. 


hot e ls —continued. 

6. Congress Hall Hotel Co., 233 New 

Jersey Avenue SE. 

7. Cairo Apartment House Co., 1615 Q 

Street NW. 

8. Capitol Park Hotel Co., North Capitol 

and E Streets. 

9. Washington Hotel Co., Continental. 

10. C. W. Edwards, Piedmont, 491 Mis¬ 

souri Avenue NW. 

11. Ebbitt House, Fourteenth and F 

Streets NW. 

12. Grafton Hotel, 1139 Connecticut 

Avenue NW., Harrington Mills, 
proprietor. 

13. Grand Hotel Co., 1426 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW. 

14. Gordon Hotel, 918 Sixteenth Street 

NW., T. A. McKee, proprietor. 

15. Harrington Hotel Co., 432 Eleventh 

Street NW., H. Mills, proprietor. 

16. Harris Hotel, 15 Massachusetts Ave¬ 

nue NW. 

17. National Hotel Co., G. F. Schutt, pro¬ 

prietor. 

18. Powhatan Hotel (Corp.), Powhatan. 

19. Levi Woodbury, St. James Hotel. 

20. Southern Hotel Co., Metropolitan, 

T. A. McKee, president. 

21. Shoreham Hotel Co., Shoreham, J. 

Maury Dove, president. 


hotels —continued. 

22. Sterling Hotel Co., Sterling, T. P. 

Taylor, vice president. 

23. Summit Hotel, 1249 Seventh Street 

NW., John Windolph, proprietor. 

24. Tremont Hotel, 304 Second Street 

NW., Mary L. Colton, proprietress. 

25. Hotel Thy son, 1503 Seventh Street 

NW., John Walsh, proprietor. 

26. Vendome Hotel, 301 Pennsylvania 

Avenue. 

27. Varnum Hotel, New Jersey Avenue 

and C Street SE., C. C. Leavens, 
proprietor. 

28. Willard Hotel Co., Willard. 

CLUBS. 

1. Army and Navy, 1627 I Street NW. 

2. Commercial, 1634 I Street NW. 

3. Century, 815 Vermont Avenue NW. 

4. Cosmos, 1520 II Street NW. 

5. Eagle, 601 E Street NW. 

6. Elks, 919 H Street NW. 

7. Jolly Fat Men’s, 933 D Street NW. 

8. Metropolitan, 1700 H Street NW. 

9. Monticello, 1301 Fourth Street NW. 

10. National Press, 1420 G Street NW. 

11. University, 900 Fifteenth Street NW. 

12. Washington Saengerbund, 314 C 

Street NW. 


The Chairman. Please tell us briefly about the Louise Gordon case. 
Mr. Shoemaker. Mr. Gordon, whose first name I can not recall at 

f >resent, had a license at New Jersey Avenue and Q Street during the 
ast license year. He died, and the barroom was continued after¬ 
wards by the widow, Mrs. Louise Gordon. I can not give the dates. 

The Chairman. You heard Mr. Wilson’s statement in regard to the 
Gordon case ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; I heard Mr. Wilson’s statement in regard to 
the Louise Gordon case, and am familiar with the circumstances 
and corroborate what he had to say in reference thereto in his 
testimony. I might add, however, that at the hearing on the 
application for transfer, some months after the license had expired 
by limitation of law, I urged the objection that the 30 days had 
expired long ago, and there was no license to transfer, but the board 
held otherwise. I then asked that the matter be referred to the 
corporation counsel for an opinion. For quite a while they objected 
to complying with that request, but did finally, and it went to the 
corporation counsel, and I was required to prepare a brief on it. 
The corporation counsel very speedily decided that there was no 
license to transfer, and that a transfer could not be made. 

The Chairman. Did they grant the transfer ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The transfer was not made, but the applicant 
was permitted to continue the business for weeks afterwards, and 
until Mr. Wilson, through the District Commissioners, was able to 
secure a closing. 

The Chairman. Is she not doing business now ? 



126 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Shoemaker. She is doing business now. She applied directly 
after that for a new license, ana it was considered with the renewals 
for the year, beginning November 1, 1914, and was granted. 

The Chairman. She was granted a new license ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. At the old place of business ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. A transfer of the old license to another place was 
declined ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. This transfer sought was simply from the estate 
to her, not to another place. The objection was, of course, that under 
the law the license after 30 days was dead, that it expired by limita¬ 
tion of law, and under the rules of the board, which I will insert in the 
record if you have no objection. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Shoemaker. It is section 20 [reading]: 

Sec. 20 (a). In case of the death of a licensee, the duly authorized personal repre¬ 
sentative of the deceased, or any person or persons authorized by the Supreme Court 
of the District of Columbia may. with the consent in writing of the excise board, 
conduct the business for a period of not exceeding thirty days after such death, and, 
unless the license be transferred within thirty days (including the fifteen days’ posting 
required by Sec. 11 of the rules and regulations) after the death of the licensee, the 
license shall expire, in accordance with paragraph 15 of the excise law. 

The Chairman. That is sufficient. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I might call your attention, gentlemen, to the 
Michael Raftery transfer case, which has not been mentioned before. 

The Chairman. Is that a different case from the Raftery case which 
we have had up before? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; there are three Raftery cases. 

The Chairman. This is the case of Michael Raftery ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; he sought to secure a transfer of his license 
to Twentieth and E Streets NW. That was a very bad section some 
years ago when there were saloons there, but under the old law we 
made a fight to put those saloons out of existence. The testimony 
of some of the people who lived there, some of them colored people, 
was that the condition had greatly improved since those saloons were 
abolished. When Mr. Raftery made application to locate in that 
same section we urged against the transfer that the conditions had 
been bad and had been changed for the better by the closing of 
the saloons, and told the board all about the long, hard fight 
the people had put up to rid themselves of those saloons, 
and, having a large number of protestants, we thought that 
the transfer should not have been granted, but it was granted. It 
was near St. John’s Orphan Asylum, a large institution of the Protes¬ 
tant Episcopal Church. They put up a handsome new building just 
about that time. However, the fight was renewed to prevent a re¬ 
newal for the present license year, and the applicant came in by 
attorney and offered, if he were permitted to continue a few months 
after the beginning of the license year, that he would agree to close 
the saloon. The protests were exceedingly strong in that case— 
there were a number of influential people, some Senators, I think— 
and the license was not renewed for that place; but later, after the 
1st of November, Mr. Raftery made an application for a new license 
on Pennsylvania Avenue between Nineteenth and Twentieth Streets, 
and was granted a license there against the protests of the Union 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 127 

Methodist Episcopal Church close by, and others. That made the 
two hundred and ninety-ninth barroom license granted. 

The Chairman. What was the three-hundredth ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The three-hundredth was to Glavin, at 309 G 
Street. 

The Chairman. Was any violation of the law involved in this 
Michael Raftery case? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not cite it as a violation of law, except that 
in the granting of the license at Twentieth and E Streets there was a 
house of religious worship close by, which was at that time objecting. 
It was not a large church, but it has been occupied for quite a long 
while, I do not know how long; but it was not regarded by the board 
as of sufficient importance to be considered. 

Senator Thompson. Was that within 400 feet of the church? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Within 400 feet. 

The Chairman. What was the church ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. It was a colored church. It is almost wholly a 
colored neighborhood there now. 

The Chairman. That is where the saloon is operating now? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No, sir; that is where it was the last license year. 
But they found they could not get a renewal there, so that since the 
beginning of the year he was licensed for the place on Pennsylvania 
Avenue. 

Senator Thompson. It is running there now? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, it is now running on Pennsylvania Avenue, 
between Nineteenth and Twentieth Streets. 

The Chairman. Have you anything else ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I want to invite your attention for just a 
moment to a situation in Georgetown, in Wisconsin Avenue, on the 
west side of the block between N and O Streets. There were three 
saloons there prior to the 1st of last November, and the distance 
from two of them was measured and they were found to be within 
400 feet of the Methodist Episcopal Church on Dumbarton Avenue. 
The third one was on the extreme end of the block near N Street, 
and was not within the 400-foot limit of the church. 

The Chairman. Are these two saloons listed ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. There were three there. 

The Chairman. I know, but are the two that were granted there 
listed ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. One of them was granted. The nearest one to 
the church was kept by a man by the name of Lipnick, and another 
was kept by a man named Killeen, and the third by a Mr. Cole. 
Lipnick was denied his license, and Cole was denied his, although 
being out of the limit. Killeen’s license was renewed. 

The Chairman. He is within 400 feet of the Dumbarton Avenue 
Church ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. He is within 400 feet. 

The Chairman. He is in the list you have given us? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. Against Mr. Cole’s place we had nothing 
to urge. 

The Chairman. He is the man who was without the limit? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. We did not urge anything against him 
because we had not anything to urge against him. 

The Chairman. He was turned down? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 


128 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. And the man who was within 400 feet of the church 
was favored and granted a license ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir; that is what I wanted to bring out. 

The Chairman. What attorney represented this man who got the 
license ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I think I can tell you in a moment. [After 
examining book.] My record does not show that any attorney ap¬ 
peared for him. 

The Chairman. The records will show that? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The records will show that. 

The Chairman. Did you have anything against the other man in 
the block who wanted a license? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Nothing against him except that he was within 
the prescribed limit of the church. I talked with him afterwards. 
He thought he was harshly treated. He knew he was within the 
limit and expected to go out, although he filed an application for 
renewal. 

The Chairman. And inasmuch as the man that was granted a li¬ 
cense was within the limit, he thought he had been harshly treated ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; he thought that the treatment was wrong; 
that he should have been treated just like the other man. 

The Chairman. Did they turn this other man down on the ground 
that he was within 400 feet of the church? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I understand so. He told me so. 

The Chairman. Very well. Now, is that all? 

Mr. Shoemaker. There is just this, that I had a talk with Mr. 
Lipnick, prior to the action of the excise board, and he said he ex¬ 
pected his license to be denied; that he was within 400 feet of the 
church, but he thought that the other man was also within 400 feet 
of the church, and he thought he should lose his license as well. 

The Chairman. Was the man who got the license nearer to the 
church than Lipnick ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No, not quite so near, but very close. 

The Chairman. Not quite so near but very close, and within the 
400 feet? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; I gave the distance this morning. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I may say right here about the place of Michael 
Raftery, whose place I just referred to, as being on Pennsylvania 
Avenue between Nineteenth and Twentieth Streets, near the Union 
Methodist Episcopal Church and two other churches, that so far as I 
know none of us have made measurements, and we would like to ask 
the privilege of making these measurements and furnishing the results 
to the board. 

The Chairman. Very well. We will also have the surveyor make 
the measurement. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; that would be better. 

The Chairman. I suggest that you request the surveyor, for us, to 
make that measurement. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Very well. 

The Chairman. And report to us. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I will do so. (See Plate No. 26.) I want to refer 
al t Frank L. Ash’s wholesale place, located at the corner of Twenty- 
eighth and O Streets, in Georgetown. (See Plate No. 22.) Mr. Ash has 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 129 

a grocery store with a wholesale liquor license in connection with it, 
and it was quite close to several churches in the neighborhood. It is 
a colored neighborhood, very largely. 

The Chairman. This is a grocery store ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. He made application to transfer it to 
another point, and he succeeded in getting a point which was almost 
equidistant from four churches. We opposed it on the ground that 
it was not sufficiently away from the churches. I made the measure¬ 
ments at the time the application for renewal was up. He was trans¬ 
ferred against the protests of a large number of people in the neigh¬ 
borhood, all the churches, and the people who maintained the diet 
kitchen, quite close by, and quite a number of white property owners 
of that neighborhood. After the license was transferred and before 
the application for renewal was made, I made a measurement and 
found the distance to be less than 400 feet from one of the churches, 
and I think one other church is even closer. 

License was granted on Capitol Hill, on Pennsylvania Avenue, to 
Mr. O’Donnell, for 333 Pennsylvania Avenue (see Plate No. 6), against 
the strenuous protests of a large number of citizens, property owners, 
and residents in the immediate neighborhood. He was transferred 
there. 

The Chairman. On what ground did they oppose it ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. On the ground that it was undesirable in that 
neighborhood; that there never had been a saloon on that block. 

The Chairman. Was it a business block? 

Mr. Shoemaker. There was some business on it, and probably 
enough to justify a license if it were in a business section and not a 
residential section. It was opposed on the ground also that it was 
within 400 feet of a church, the Metropolitan Presbyterian Church. 
The police reported it to be within 400 feet of the Christadelphian 
house of religious worship, which is just across the street from it, 
but the transfer was made. The law provides that protestants, if 
they desire, must be heard before any license can be granted. The 
board, to be fair to them, granted hearings in every case so far as I know. 
The hearings on renewal of applications were in most instances ex¬ 
tremely brief, the time was short, and I do not have any special criticism 
to make as to that because they probably did the best they could under 
the circumstances; but we have held that where protests were numerous 
and strong, and from the immediate neighborhood of the proposed 
licenses, they should be regarded as a prohibition against the grant¬ 
ing of the license; and yet, in many cases .where the protests were 
large and influential, many property owners being represented on 
the protests, licenses were granted despite these protests. We urged 
that the protests should be sufficient to determine the result of the 
case. The board in many cases thought otherwise, and licenses were 
granted in places where under the old law they could not have been 
granted, because the consent of the property owners on the block was 
necessary. 

The Chairman. Under the old law the consent of the property 
owners on a block was necessary ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Of the resident housekeepers and propertv 
owners in the block on both sides of the street. That was required. 

The Chairman. Their consent was necessary ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. Under this law that consent is not 
required, so that saloons have been transferred to places where 


130 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

they could not have been transferred to, because the necessary 
consent could not have been secured. 

The Chairman. And saloons have been erected in places where 
they never were before ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. By this new board ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. I invite your attention to Timothy 
Hanlon’s application for barroom license at the corner of H and 
Ninth Streets NE. The protests were especially strong against 
that application. It was on the northwest corner of those streets. 
The owner of the property and the tenant in the northeast corner, 
the owner of the property on the southeast corner, and the owner of 
the property on the southwest corner were in protest against it. A 
majority of property owners on the same side of the street, beside 
a large number of merchants and residents, protested against it, and 
despite the fact that there was a house of religious worship, that is, 
that there was a religious body meeting across the street on the north¬ 
east corner, the license was granted. Next door to this place is the 
residence of Dr. Cole. I can not recall Dr. Cole’s full name just at 
this minute. 

The Chairman. Dr. J. T. Cole? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; Dr. J. T. Cole. Dr. Cole has been living 
there for many years. He owned this property. His office was there 
and he opposed the transfer of the license very strenuously, and he 
claimed to be very greatly injured by the locating of that barroom 
next to his home and office. 

I may speak, Mr. Chairman, about the Miller case, just a word. 
That is one of the four saloons located on E Street between Thirteenth 
and Fourteenth Streets, that I have already referred to. When the 
board handed out their list of grants of barroom licenses there 
were 297, leaving 3 vacancies; that is, leaving 3 to make 300. There 
were a great many applications filed for the 3 places—requests 
for applications. Many applicants were not permitted to file, I 
understand, but I suppose there were 50 or 75 applications or 
efforts to file for these 3 places that were vacant. The Millers 
were of the first to file. No others were permitted at that time. 
We opposed this application, and I took the trouble to prepare some 
law upon the question, of changing entrances and furnished it to the 
board at the hearing as a guide. The law, to my mind, was conclu¬ 
sive. I cited a number of cases, several decided in the Supreme 
Court of Massachusetts, and some in the Supreme Court of the State 
of New York, settling the same proposition without question. The 
board did not seem to care for them very much. They apparently 
had no effect upon them. 

The Chairman. Settling what proposition ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. As to the changing of entrances in order to cir¬ 
cumvent the law. 

Senator Jones. Of course the members of the committee can not 
be here all the time, and I have been obliged to be out of the room 
at times. Has the situation been gone into with reference to those 
five saloons there? 

The Chairman. That was gone into by Mr. Wilson. 

Senator Jones. Then Mr. Shoemaker will not need to go over it 
again. 

Mr. Shoemaker. No. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


131 


The Chairman. If you have anything to add to it besides what Mr. 
Wilson said, very well. 

Senator Thompson. You said these cases decided the identical 
question ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Will you put those cases in the record ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. I haven’t them here; I have them at my 
office. 

Senator Thompson. Put them in, with the authorities. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Very well. There were some authorities. 

The Chairman. Give them to us later. 

(The decisions referred to by Mr. Shoemaker were subsequently 
submitted to the chairman and are here printed in full, as follows:) 

LAW AS TO CHANGE OP ENTRANCE TO SALOONS, ETC. 

1. A saloon and a schoolhouse were situated within a triangle formed by three 
streets, A, B, C, and within 400 feet of each other. The saloon stood on a lot on C 
Street, and this lot ran through to A Street, the latter having a lower grade than C 
Street, so that there was a cellar basement in the building with doors opening into the 
lot on A Street side, whore the building was 30 feet distant from the street. The bar¬ 
room in the building opened into a common hallway, from which stairs led into the 
basement. The schoolhouse faced an angle made by the junction of A and B Streets 
and had entrances from both, the lot being inclosed by a fence with a gate at the 
entrance from each street. It was held that it was competent for the jury to find 
that the saloon and schoolhouse were on the same street, and that being true they were 
less than 400 feet of each other. (Commonwealth v. Heaganey, 137 Mass., 574.) 

2. But a saloon on A Street continues to be on A Street, notwithstanding the boarding 
up of A Street entrance and window to meet the requirements of this law, and the use- 
afterwards of another entrance on a side street. (Commonwealth v. Whelan, 134 
Mass., 206.) 

3. Closing the entrance to a saloon in a building within 200 feet of a church and 
making another in the next street does not take the saloon out of the operation of 
Laws 1896, ch. 112. par. 24, which provides that the traffic in liquor shall not be per¬ 
mitted in any ‘ ‘ building ” in the same street, and within 200 feet of a building occupied 
as a church. * (In re Zinzow, 43 N. Y., 714; People v. Murray, 5 App. Div., 441 N. Y.; 
Commonwealth v. Whelan, 134 Mass., 206.) 

4. In the case of Commonwealth v. Whelan (134 Mass., 206), at the trial of a com¬ 
plaint for an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, it appeared that the building in 
which the sale was made was bounded on one side by C Street and on another side 
by S Street, the two streets intersecting each other at the corner of the building; that 
the only entrance to the building and the only windows of the premises were on C 
Street, the entrance being numbered “28 C Street ”; that a former entrance and a 
former window on S Street had been permanently closed by boarding up to meet 
the requirements of the authorities in granting a license to the defendant; that upon 
the wall of the building on S Street there were two signs on which the defendant’s 
name appeared, and upon the same wall a sign on which were the words, “Entrance 
28 C Street,” hnd that the whole building was within 400 feet of a building on S Street 
then occupied by a public school. Held that the defendant’s building was on S 
Street within the meaning of the statute of 1882, ch. 220. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I then asked the board for a reference of the 
matter to the corporation counsel for consideration and his opinion. 
The board refused to refer it to the corporation counsel. 

The Chairman. Refused to refer it ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. . 

Senator Jones. Did they expressly refuse to do it, or simply fail 

to do it ? . _ _ , t , 

Mr Shoemaker. They said they would not do it. 

Senator Jones. Did they give any reason for not doing it? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; they did not express any reason for it. 

They just refused to do it. 

The Chairman. You said there were 297 licenses granted, and 
that left 3 open ? 

84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3--10 J 


132 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; when they handed out the results of their 
action on the 31st day of October there were 297 bar licenses granted, 
and that left 3 to make 300. 

The Chairman. Was Miller among those? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Miller was the first of the three granted. 

The Chairman. He was one of the other 3 besides the 297 ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. There were 3 more that were granted after the 
297. We opposed the granting of that one. It made 4 saloons on 
one side of the block. 

The Chairman. As I understood, the 3 on E Street had already 
been granted among the 297? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; and Miller’s had been refused, and was 1 of 
the 2 that had been refused on that side of the street. There were 
5 of them. 

The Chairman. Under the law ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Under the law. 

The Chairman. He had been refused ? He had made application 
and had been refused ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; with an entrance on E Street. He and 
Bush lost their licenses. 

The Chairman. Afterwards Miller renewed his application for 1 
of those 3 places which were still left open, for a license to do business 
as if he were on Fourteenth Street? 

Mr. Shoemaker. On Fourteenth Street. In other words, they 
made application for a number on Fourteenth Street that did not 
exist at that time ? 

The Chairman. At the time he made his application for a number 
on Fourteenth Street, had he made his entrance on Fourteenth 
Street ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. He had not. There was no entrance there, and 
the day that the license was granted they knocked out the window, 
just leaving an ugly hole, and were doing business through that hole. 

The Chairman. People were going in and out the window ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; they just tore the window out and people 
were going in and out, and they had a temporary door next day. 

The Chairman. He was in a hurry to do business ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; right away. I suppose that door was torn 
out within an hour after the license was granted. I observed it, 
and the barroom remained in the same place, and so far as I could 
see there had not been a bottle changed in the place. The only 
change I saw in it was the change in the location of the door. 

Senator Jones. The same room is being used for a saloon there 
now that was used by Mr. Miller before his license was refused on 
E Street? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The same room, with the same conditions. 

Senator Jones. Exactly the same room, is it not? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The same room. 

The Chairman. In the same building ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. The same building, and all ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. That is right opposite the New Willard Hotel? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. The only difference is that they have 
a door on Fourteenth Street now instead of on E Street, and they 
have a window on E Street. There is just a few feet difference be- 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 133 

tween the old door and the new one. I guess I need not say anything 
further about that case. 

The Chairman. No. 

Senator Jones. Mr. Shoemaker, do you know anything about the 
decision of the board to grant certain licenses on E Street on the 30th, 
I guess of October, and any change being made on the 31st? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, I know this, Senator, that the assessor, who 
is charged under the law with actually issuing the paper licenses, 
informed me that he had, on the morning of the 30th of October, been 
instructed to make out Bush’s license,* but that he had got instruc¬ 
tions— 

Senator Jones. State the three. What three had he been directed 
to make out ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. He had been instructed to make out the licenses 
for Shoomaker’s, Gerstenberg’s, and Bush’s. 

Senator Jones. That left out Miller? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That left out Miller and Engel. 

The Chairman. That was on the 30th? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. He said that he had actually made out 
Bush’s license, but that an order was given to him overnight to 
change the license from Bush to Engel. 

Senator Jones. In other words, Bush’s license was withdrawn and 
a license was issued to Engel ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. On the morning of the 31st he got this order? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; and he said that Mr. Bush went over to get 
his license, having been informed that it was granted, and when he 
arrived he found that the change had been made. 

The Chairman. Who represented Engel? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Mr. Joseph Burkhart. 

The Chairman. Who represented Bush ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Julius I. Peyser, as I remember. 

Senator Jones. Do you know of any reason why this change was 
made ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have no personal knowledge, Senator, in refer¬ 
ence to that. I have been told some things about it, which I have 
not been able to verify. 

Senator Jones. I think it will be well for us to ask the board about 
that. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. And find out what reasons they give, if any. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have heard reasons given from more than on# 
source why it was done, and I think probably Mr. Peyser and Mr. 
Bush might possibly give some information. 

Senator Jones. I think it would be well to have Mr. Peyser and 
Mr. Bush. 

The Chairman. Yes. Is there anything else, Mr. Shoemaker? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have some other cases, Mr. Chairman, if you 
want me to go on with them. The “fire-limit” case I do not know 
whether you want me to say anything further about ? 

The Chairman. I think we understand that. 

Mr. Shoemaker. You have that in the record, have you? 

The Chairman. We practically have that in the record. 

Senator Thompson. And the two saloons at Thirty-sixth Street ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 



134 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

The Chairman. I will ask you this question about the fire-limit 
case: In changing the western fire limit from Thirty-fifth Street to 
Thirty-seventh Street, did the commissioners include the entire 
street, or just sufficient to take in the saloons ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Just the saloon section, from Thirty-fifth to 
Thirty-seventh, and a square or two to the north. 

The Chairman. Just a square or two to the north on those streets ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes; as I recall it. 

The Chairman. In other words, they just cut out a small segment 
there ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. A small segment. 

The Chairman. Just large enough to take in those two saloons ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir; conveniently. 

The Chairman. They did not take in the whole length of Thirty- 
seventh Street? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; not at all. 

Senator Jones. Some supplemental legislation by another body ? 

Senator Thompson. What sort of proceeding was necessary to do 
that before the commissioners ? What was necessary to be done ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The commissioners, upon a petition presented to 
them by some of the people on M Street- 

Senator Jones. Was any purpose given for it? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No purpose was given for it, except better fire 
protection. 

Senator Jones. These saloons were in existence, and this law 
would have cut them out ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is sufficient on that. 

Mr. Shoemaker. One of the most important cases, I think, is 
the Schladt case. He has a hotel and barroom in Georgetown, at 
1238 Wisconsin Avenue. 

The Chairman. Was this place listed among the hotels in your list ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. As a restaurant. It is one of the restaurants I 
marked. Joseph Schladt has been frequently charged by the police 
with running a disorderly house, selling on Sunday, and so on, and he 
has a long record of offenses. He was convicted several times. This 
new board when it came in gave special consideration to it and issued 
a rule to show cause why his application for renewal of license should 
not be denied. At that hearing Capt. Schneider, of that precinct, 
appeared at our request and others appeared and gave testimony 
against him. I was able to get the captain to go back over the entire 
record since he had been in the precinct, and he testified to that record, 
but despite this record—the character of the place being clearly 
shown—the license was renewed. 

The Chairman. What, exactly, was the character of this place ? 
You say it was of bad character? 

Mr. Shoemaker. It was charged several times with—well, the 
reports of the captain from time to time were that there was Sunday 
selling regularly; that it was a resort for women; and those two things 
were the principal charges against him. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Shoemaker. This year when it came up for renewal we made 
no further effort to defeat it. 

The Chairman. You do not know whether last year the immoral 
character of the place persisted ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 135 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have no knowledge about that—-no information. 

Senator Jones. The same man is running it? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The same man is running it. 

Senator Jones. Is that licensed as a hotel? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; it is licensed as a restaurant. 

Senator Jones. What I mean is, has it a hotel license; not as a 
barroom, but is it a hotel? 

Mr. Shoemaker. It is a hotel. 

Senator Jones. Has it a hotel license? 

Mr. Shoemaker. It has not 50 rooms. 

Senator Jones. That is what I am trying to get at. 

Mr. Shoemaker. A while ago I agreed to furnish a list of the 
licensed hotels. 

Senator Jones. I wanted to know in this particular case if this is a 
hotel and if it has less than 50 rooms ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. It is a hotel having less than 50 rooms. 

Senator Jones. And it has a restaurant license in order to get 
around that provision in the law ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. I understand that wherever these restaurant 
licenses are issued they have a bar, just the same. 

Senator Jones. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. I think I have nothing to offer further, 
gentlemen, unless you have some questions to ask. 

The Chairman. Do you think that the questions involved in the 
securing of the license are sufficient to justify the payment of a large 
fee to an attorney? 

Mr. Shoemaker, I do not, Mr. Chairman. I think that the fees 
that have been charged, some that we know definitely about and 
others that we have heard rumors of, are away out of proportion to 
the service rendered. Take the case of the transfer of the license of 
Denis J. McCarthy to the Evans Building, where the fee that was 
contracted for was $5,500; so far as I could see, the work in that 
case was limited to the preparing of the contract and to the services 
of a young man soliciting petitioners in behalf of the transfer in the 
Evans Building, and some little outside, without result, among 
property owners, which probably took him a half a day, and the 
time given by the attorneys in presenting their case to the excise 
board did not require more than an hour and a half. 

Senator Thompson. I presume the hearings before the excise 
board were rather informal, were they not ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Bather informal. 

Senator Thompson. It does not require any more skill and ability 
than to try a case in a police court, does it ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Not at all. 

Senator Jones. Is there any real necessity for an attorney ap¬ 
pearing before the board for a man asking for a transfer of a license? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I see no necessity for it, Senator. 

The Chairman. As a matter of fact, all the questions are questions 
of fact, are they not? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. 

The Chairman. I mean all the questions are almost purely ques¬ 
tions of fact ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. They employ attorneys—I may say this 
as a matter of information—who appear there in behalf of their 


136 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

applications. These attorneys feel it necessary to cross-examine 
and sometimes browbeat protestants who come there, sometimes slap 
the table, and denounce opponents, and some of them have said to 
me “Why, we have to do that in order to impress our clients”; and 
one told" me after he had been very strenuous in the trial of his 
case, that his client came out into the hall after it was over, and 
said, “ That is the way I like to see you do it. Give it to Shoemaker.” 

Most of the work by attorneys before the board is confined to but 
few. Now and then some attorney drops in with a case, but I suppose 
that 10 attorneys could be named who do 90 per cent of all the work 
before the excise board. 

The Chairman. Do you receive any compensation for the work 
you do in particular cases ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; I do not—none at all. I receive a compen¬ 
sation by the year. 

The Chairman. For representing the Anti-Saloon League? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir; for all work before the excise board, 
and not only there, but for any other legal work for the league. 

The Chairman. Do you do other kinds of work for the Anti- 
Saloon League besides this ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. What is your salary? 

Mr. Shoemaker. $2,000. 

Senator Thompson. You appear and try these cases and all cases, 
do you ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. My work for the organization has been so 
heavy that I have been precluded from looking after private work to 
a large extent. 

The Chairman. You have appeared in many cases for the Anti- 
Saloon League before the excise board? 

Mr. Shoemaker. The present board ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I think I have appeared in over 700 cases. 

The Chairman. Have you anything else ? 

Senator Jones. I want to ask one question, so as to make some¬ 
thing clear. I think I understand it, but some one asked me about 
it a while ago. There was something about Mr. Bride referring to 
Mr. Columbus and Mr. Baker collecting money from the saloon peo¬ 
ple. Did Mr. Bride say anything about the purpose for which this 
money was collected ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No; he did not, Senator. He just made that re¬ 
mark in that way, and there was no opportunity to discuss it further. 

Senator Jones. That is the way I understood your evidence, but 
I wanted to make it perfectly clear. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. No, sir; but Rev. Mr. White, of Anacostia, is 
here, and I should like to have you hear what he has to say about 
the situation over there, if you care to do so. 

The Chairman. Very well, we will hear him briefly. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF REV. GEORGE LEROY WHITE. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. State your full name. 

Mr. White. George Leroy White. 

The Chairman. And your profession ? 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


137 


Mr. White. Clergyman; Anacostia Methodist Episcopal Church. 

The Chairman. Where do you reside ? 

Mr. White. In Anacostia. 

The Chairman. How long have you been officiating there? 

Mr. White. Two years the 1st of March. No;. two years the 1st 
of April. 

The Chairman. Were you a citizen of the District originally? 

Mr. White. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Where are you from ? 

Mr. White. Maryland. 

The Chairman. Did you come from Maryland there? 

Mr. White. I came from Baltimore. 

The Chairman. You are familiar with the proceedings which took 
place in connection with the licensing of the saloon in Anacostia ? 

Mr. White. Very much so; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you briefly state your connection with it ? 

Mr. White. I was chairman of the committee that made the fight. 

The Chairman. On the part of the people? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You would speak now on the barroom that is 
located there? 

Mr. White. I am willing to speak on anything you want me to 
speak on. 

Mr. Shoemaker. Dr. White might explain the campaign there. 

The Chairman. Yes; I am going to ask him about that now. 
You protested against the location of the barroom there? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

The Chairman. There is a wholesale liquor house there, too ? 

Mr. White. We protested against the whole thing. 

The Chairman. When you came to Anacostia three years ago were 
any saloons there? 

Mr. White. There was one retail place and there were two whole¬ 
sale places. 

The Chairman. One retail and two wholesale. Are they still there ? 

Mr. White. One wholesale place has been declined—refused. 

The Chairman. But the retail liquor house that was there when 
you went there is still operating? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And it was against the renewal of its license by 
this excise board that you protested? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

The Chairman. It was also against the renewal of the license of the 
present wholesale house ? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

The Chairman. You protested against that? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

The Chairman. Now, go ahead. 

Mr. White. We made quite a vigorous campaign lasting as much 
as a year, I presume. We began in the winter with the attempts to 
transfer. As soon as it was known, of course, that this law would 
go into effect the first of November, men who were within the limit 
of the navy yard applied for transfer to Anacostia, and a man named 
Kean and a man named Athick began on that, and we were successful 
in getting those defeated. Then we started a campaign early last 
winter, I presume, against the three saloons we had at that time, two 


138 


EXCISE BOAED OF THE DISTEICT OF COLUMBIA. 


wholesale and one retail, and that lasted all the summer, more or less. 
We had a number of Senators and Congressmen speaking, and we 
also had a card prepared. We had a twofold campaign. One was 
to have it declared a residence territory, and failing that, we were 
protesting against the individual applications; so that we had two 
cards prepared, one for each item, and we had the community can¬ 
vassed. By count there are about 1,600 adults in Anacostia, and we 
had 800 persons sign our application. There is one church there, and 
of course these three applicants, were all members of that one church, 
and they were neutral—ostensibly neutral—and that was a pretty 
large church. Then there were friends of those, who would refuse to 
sign, and then a great many people who did not want to get into the 
fight. So far as I know, there were very few, if any, who were willing 
to come out openly in behalf of the saloon. We stood for the resi¬ 
dence proposition. We were not told at all whether our position 
was accepted or refused. We never heard anything at all, but of 
course when the individual licenses were up for granting or rejection, 
we supposed then that we had been refused, and then we protested 
against each individual applicant. 

The Chairman. You mean you tried to have the excise board 
declare that a residence territory? 

Mr. White. Yes, within the meaning of the law. 

Senator Thompson. What was the situation as to the business in 
those particular blocks ? 

Mr. White. There are 866 houses, thereabouts—there may be an 
error of 10 or 12, but anyway there are below 900 houses—in Ana¬ 
costia, of all kinds. Ninety of these are business houses of some 
character, but in the majority of those 90 there is a residence above 
the business place. Just the downstairs front room is occupied by 
some kind of store, and the family, or some other family, is living 
there. But even granting that it is business, it only gives about 90. 

Senator Thompson. Getting down to where this saloon was 
located, what was the situation in the block where it was ? 

Mr. White. The retail place was at the corner of a block. Of 
course, it faces on Good Hope Road, and that particular road is 
undoubtedly 50 per cent business. 

Senator Jones. All four sides of the block, or just one side of the 
street ? 

Mr. White. Just one side. Of course, it is on the corner of Thir¬ 
teenth Street. There is no business on Thirteenth Street. Extend¬ 
ing all the way up, it is residence. 

The Chairman. How far is the wholesale house from that? 

Mr. White. That is at the other end of what we call Anacostia. 

The Chairman. Two or three blocks away ? 

Mr. White. Yes; it is four blocks away. 

Senator Thompson. I have not got in my mind yet how that is 
situated. Is it facing this business street you speak of, or on the 
business square ? 

Mr. White. Good Hope Road is a new road, and that is at the 
corner of one block, and faces Good Hope Road; but of course it runs 
all the way back, and the side of it is on Thirteenth Street. There is 
no business on Thirteenth Street. 

Senator Thompson. How about the other streets ? 

Mr. White. On Good Hope Road there is business; but the whole¬ 
sale place is clearly in residence territory. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


139 


Senator Thompson. Describe that location. 

Mr. White. I think there is some kind of a doctor has a place 
there. I would not call that business. It is his home. Then there 
is this place, and a little store, if I remember right—I do not know 
whether there are two stores or not, I think there is one—and the 
family lives above it. They have some kind of notion store. That 
is all there is of that, and a vacant lot. 

Then across the street is a police station, and then some other 
vacant lots. 

The Chairman. Does this wholesale place do any other business 
besides a liquor business? 

Mr. White. I think not. 

The Chairman. It sells in packages under 5 gallons ? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Has it one of these little railings in there to 
keep the children out? 

Mr. White. 1 have not been in it. 

Senator Thompson. I thought maybe you knew from hearsay how 
it was. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Doctor. 

Mr. White. This man who runs the wholesale place bears a good 
reputation as a law-abiding citizen. 

The Chairman. How about the retail place ? 

Mr. White. I have not any positive proof, although there are peo¬ 
ple who tell us on the side. I heard the other day that a minor had 
gotten liquor there, but I do not know that I could get enough proof 
to prove that; but the mother- 

The Chairman. Is the place managed in a way offensive to the 
people there? 

Mr. White. No, sir. If we have got to have a saloon, I presume 
there is no objection to that man. 

The Chairman. Yes? 

Mr. White. But the strong point is this, that we certainly gave a 
clear majority of the people in Anacostia of 21 years of age and over 
as opposing a saloon there; and they totally disregarded the majority 
idea and simply foisted it upon us. 

Another strong point with us is that the law automatically closing 
the saloons contiguous to the navy yard would bring into our com¬ 
munity an undesirable element of negroes and low-class whites. 

Senator Thompson. Plow far are you from the navy yard? 

Mr. White. They are right across the river. This saloon is right 
across the river. I do not know how wide the river is, but I presume 
it is 1,000 feet wide. I presume the saloon is more than a thousand feet. 

Senator Thompson. Where does the most of this man’s business 
come from in thrt saloon ? 

Mr. White. His business has been reported to me as greatly in¬ 
creased since the closing of the saloons by the navy yard. 

The Chairman. Does it come mostly from the other side of the river ? 

Mr. White. I think the increase would be from across the river. 

Senator Jones. Most of the other business comes from Anacostia 
or Maryland points? 

Mr. White. There are people who drive in there. Of course, people 
can get in by Pennsylvania Avenue SE., extended, but a great many 
people come in through Good Hope Road. 

Senator Jones. He conducts that saloon legally ? 


140 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. White. It seems so. It is legal; yes, sir. I have been told 
that he took on more clerks after these saloons at the navy yard 
were closed, and I do know that he has an automobile and has the 
signs of prosperity. We are very much chagrined. 

Senator Thompson. Who conducts the wholesale place? 

Mr. Shoemaker. John Madigan. 

The Chairman. You say the people were very much chagrined 
and humiliated on account of the saloon being continued there ? 

Mr. White. Yes. Our principal fight was against the retail man. 

The Chairman. You feel that you are essentially a residence section ? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

The Chairman. Because only 90 of the 900 houses—that is about 
10 per cent of the houses—of Anacostia are business houses? 

Mr. White. Yes; and more than 50 per cent of the 90 are occupied 
also as residences. 

The Chairman. More than 50 per cent of the 90 are occupied as 
residences also? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Is the residence upstairs in these houses on 
this business street used ? 

Mr. White. Oh, yes, indeed; not in every house, but generally 
speaking. 

Senator Thompson. At the place where this saloon is located ? 

Mr. White. There is opportunity for residence there, but nobody 
is living in it. 

We once had no saloons in Anacostia. I have been told this, and 
I understand it is substantially correct, that the saloon was estab¬ 
lished at Leonard’s location under the law about a hotel, and there 
were doors cut between several contiguous houses so that probably 
three or four houses were classified as one, and as a hotel, and the 
license was granted to that place as a hotel; but as the years went 
on, of course the community was not awake to everything that was 
going on, and the hotel was dropped and he got a barroom license. 
Of course that hotel business was not carried on, as you know, as a 
hotel very much, and that is the reason he got that license. 

The Chairman. How many signatures were there to the petition 
protesting against the renewal ? 

Mr. White. Eight hundred. 

The Chairman. Did you say there were 1,800 people there? 

Mr. White. No; less than 1,600 by actual count. 

The Chairman. Less than 1,600 by actual count? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

Senator Jones. I understood you to say there were that many adults ? 

Mr. White. Yes; adults; 21 years of age and over. Our card 
says “I, the undersigned, 21 years of age or over.” 

The Chairman. You had 800 adult signatures ? 

Mr. White. Yes; on the cards. They are down here. 

The Chairman. And there are less than 1,600 adults in Anacostia? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is, adults—men or women ? 

Mr. White. Men and women. 

The Chairman. Is there anybody else here in the room who wants 
to testify ? 

Senator Jones. If there is not, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we 
have an executive meeting now. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


141 


Senator Thompson. I want to ask Dr. White another question. 
State what the situation is in the neighborhood of this saloon with 
reference to the location of a church or schoolhouse, or anything of 
that kind. 

Mr. White. The Catholic Church is situated on V and Thirteenth 
Streets, its front entrance facing south, and, of course, the back of 
the church running north. This saloon is located on Good Hope 
Road and Thirteenth, facing north, with the saloon running south, 
and between the southern extremity of the saloon and the northern 
extremity of the church there certainly can not be much over 250 
feet, or 300 feet at the outside, but it is probable that the front 
entrances of the two buildings may be 400 feet apart. 

Senator Jones. Is there a rear entrance to the church? 

Mr. White. I think there is, but it is not used much. 

Senator Jones. Well, there is an entrance? 

Mr. White. I would not say that. There is a room going out 
there, probably used by the priest for some purpose, and probably 
steps leading down. 

Senator Jones. You see the law says between the nearest entrances. 
It does not say between the front entrance of the saloon and the front 
entrance of the church. 

The Chairman. Is there a rear entrance to the saloon ? 

Mr. White. There is a back door and a gate. You could go in 
there if you wanted to. 

Senator Jones. Did you base any protest on the nearness of the 
church ? 

Mr. White. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. What is the situation of the wholesale house 
with relation to a school ? 

Mr. White. I do not know, but there is a large colored school over 
there. It may be 400 feet away, but it is a very close measurement. 

Senator Thompson. Could you ascertain what the fact is in 
regard to it ? 

Mr. White. There is the whole question, as to how you measure. 
If you measure in a straight line- 

The Chairman. A straight line between the nearest entrances ? 

Mr. White. A straight line- 

The Chairman. The line that a man would travel over a public 
right of way ? 

Senator Thompson. The shortest course of travel ? 

Mr. White. Some people go across this way .and some that way, 
or some can go this way [indicating]. 

Senator Thompson. Is it a public course of travel in a straight line! 

Mr. White. Oh, the street is running along there [indicating]. 

Senator Jones. That is a public right of way. 

Senator Thompson. That is a public course. 

Mr. White. You can cross over at right angles and go down that 
way [indicating]. 

Senator Jones. Is there any house near to the retail saloon ? 

Mr. White. No, sir. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

(At 6.15 o'clock, p. m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, 
Thursday, February 25, 1915, at 10.30 o'clock, a. m.) 




THIRD DAY. 


THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1915. 

Special Committee, 

United States Senate, 

Washington , D. C. 

The special committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 
o’clock a. m., in the room of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the 
Senate, in the Capitol. 

Present: Senators Sheppard (chairman), Thompson, Jones, and 
Dillingham. 

TESTIMONY OF MB. BOBERT G. SMITH. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. State your full name. 

Mr. Smith. Robert Gibson Smith. 

The Chairman. What is your official position ? 

Mr. Smith. Chairman of the excise board for the District of 
Columbia. 

The Chairman. How long have you been a resident of the District 
of Columbia ? 

Mr. Smith. Since September 8, 1906. 

The Chairman. Where did you come from here ? 

Mr. Smith. Principally from Long Island. I had been a resident 
of Jersey City until a little before that time, and came down to Vir¬ 
ginia, near Mount Vernon, where I purchased a farm, and I lived in the 
city of Washington. 

The Chairman. When did you become chairman of the excise 
board % 

Mr. Smith. On the 15th of April of last year. 

The Chairman. The law requires that an inspector for the board 
shall be appointed. Have you an inspector ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

The Chairman. What is his name ? 

Mr. Smith. Waldo C. Hibbs. 

The Chairman. What are his duties ? 

Mr. Smith. He, under the orders of the board, attends to inspec¬ 
tions, and other duties as they are put upon him, but largely, owing 
to the great number of inspections the board has had to make, he has 
either accompanied the board on the inspections or acted as ste¬ 
nographer at the hearings. He is the only stenographer the board 
has or may have under the law. 

The Chairman. What was his occupation before he was appointed 
inspector ? 

142 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


143 


Mr. Smith. I am not just sure, but he was in the office of one of 
the Commissioners of the District of Columbia and had been there 
for a number of years. 

The Chairman. Has he been a resident of the District for some 
years ? 

Mr. Smith. Oh, yes; he was a former newspaper man and a resi¬ 
dent here for the best part of his life. 

The Chairman. He stated in his testimony that he had been 
directed to make no inspections since November, 1914. Why is it 
that he has not made any inspections ? 

Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, the work of transcribing the notes from 
523 hearings, held in October and September last, occupied his time 
very thoroughly, and he is not quite through yet. 

The Chairman. He was appointed under the law requiring the 
board to have an inspector, not a stenographer to transcribe hearings! 

Mr. Smith. Quite so, but it is the only means the board has of 
obtaining that character of service. 

The Chairman. Are you not allowed a clerk ? 

Mr. Smith. We have a clerk. 

The Chairman. What is his salary ? 

Mr. Smith. $1,500 a year. 

The Chairman. And the salary of the inspector is $1,500 a year? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. That is under the law. 

Senator Jones. W 7 hy did not the board select a stenographer for 
a clerk ? 

Mr. Smith. 1 do not know. The clerk is an efficient man. He 
might take notes in longhand, he is so efficient, but we had Mr. 
Hibbs employed before we employed Mr. Hart, the clerk. 

Senator Jones. Do you not think that it is more the clerk's duty 
than the inspector's duty to do the stenographic work ? 

Mr. Smith. I agree with you, but we had to make the best of the 
material at hand to aid us, and with such a problem before the board 
we considered it rather inadequate and made the best we could of it. 

Senator Jones. Could you not have found a stenographer who 
could have acted as clerk f 

Mr. Smith. I doubt whether we could have gotten one. 

Senator Jones. Wlio is the clerk of the board ? 

Mr. Smith. Mr. Hart. 

Senator Jones. Where was he selected from ? 

Mr. Smith. He comes from New Jersey. 

Senator Jones. Who selected him ? 

Mr. Smith. I did. 

Senator Jones. On whose recommendation ? 

Mr. Smith. He came to me with a letter from some friend or friends 
in New Jersey, or Jersey City particularly, and I do not just recall the 
name. • . 

Senator Jones. Did you know him before you selected him s 

Mr. Smith. I did not; but I had a very long and favorable acquaint¬ 
ance with his father. 

Senator Jones. It was not represented that he was a stenographer ? 

Mr. Smith. It was not. 

Senator Jones. You did not make any inquiries as to whether he 
was a stenographer ? 

Mr. Smith. To be candid, I did not. 


144 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Jones. What political influence did Mr. Hart have ? 

Mr. Smith. Not any that I am aware of. 

Senator Jones. There were no political indorsements or letters 
handed in on his behalf ? 

Mr. Smith. Not any at all. I knew his father, and I thought if he 
was a chip of the old block, or represented the block at all, he would 
be good enough for me. 

Senator Jones. He lived in Jersey City? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Jones. That was his home at the time he was appointed ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Was he appointed before or after the inspector 
was appointed ? 

Mr. Smith. My impression is that he was appointed after, but 
he may have been appointed before. I will not be sure on that point. 
The record we have in the office would show that. 

Senator Jones. Has the board ever recommended any additional 
help ? 

Mr. Smith. Not any; except perhaps a messenger, which the law 
provides for. 

Senator Jones. How do you expect Mr. Hibbs to do the inspection 
work, if he has to do the stenographic work all of the time? 

Mr. Smith. Senator, the board so far has visited every situation, 
every place, where an application has been made for license or transfer. 

Senator Jones. Do you not understand that the principal duty of 
the inspector is to look after those places after they are licensed and 
see that they are complying with the law ? 

Mr. Smith. That has been done measurably. 

Senator Jones. Who has done it? 

Mr. Smith. The inspector. 

Senator Jones. The inspector stated the other day that he had not 
made any inspections since the 1st of November. 

Mr. Smith. Probably not. 

Senator Jones. That is the time these licenses were granted; and 
he said he had not been directed by the board to do it, either. 

Mr. Smith. No; I guess he had not. 

Senator Jones. When do you expect him to make these inspec¬ 
tions to see whether or not these licensed places are complying with 
the law? 

Mr. Smith. That has not yet been taken up and decided, but the 
board itself keeps in constant touch with the conduct of affairs in the 
several licensed places. 

Senator Jones. Has the board made any inspection of these 
saloons since the 1st of November? 

Mr. Smith. I think not in a general way. Special inspections have 
been made. 

Senator Jones. What special inspections have been made? 

Mr. Smith. Several of the places along Seventh Street SW. have 
been inspected. 

Senator Jones. When were they visited ? 

Mr. Smith. In January. 

Senator Jones. By whom? 

Mr. Smith. By the board, consisting of Mr. Bride, Mr. Baker, and 
myself. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 145 

Senator Jones. Did you all three go? 

Mr. Smith. We all three went. 

Senator Jones. You all went together? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Jones. What time in the day did you go? 

Mr. Smith. Sometimes we would leave at 10 o’clock in the morn¬ 
ing and at other times at 2 o’clock in the afternoon. 

Senator Jones. How often have you made these special examina¬ 
tions since the 1st of November? 

Mr. Smith. Not any except that once. 

Senator Jones. How many saloons did you visit at that time? 

Mr. Smith. Well, without being positive as to the number, probably 
half a dozen or eight. 

Senator Jones. Did you make any record as to the result of your 
visit ? 

Mr. Smith. No. Finding everything O. K., we made no note of it. 

Senator Jones. Those are the only places, however, that you 
visited ? 

Mr. Smith. I think so; yes. 

Senator Jones. What places did you visit? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recollect them by name. 

Senator Jones. Where were they located on Seventh Street? 

Mr. Smith. I have not the location in mind, Senator. We go along 
the street, and if we have not a list, we stop at every place indicated 
as a saloon by its exterior appearance. 

Senator Jones. What did you do on this inspection? 

Mr. Smith. We go in and look as to the sanitary conditions and the 
general conduct from external appearances. 

Senator Jones. You have never been around in the city to inspect 
these saloons during the hours they are required to be closed, have 
you ? 

Mr. Smith. No. 

Senator Jones. You have not seen whether they have complied 
with the provisions of the law with reference to closing ? 

Mr. Smith. No. Such work would seem to us, under the law, to 
be imposed upon the police. 

Senator Jones. What do you think about that provision in the 
law that vests the inspector with police powers ? Do you not think 
that means something ? 

Mr. Smith. That may be necessary when he goes on an inspection. 
I have never noticed any indication of obstruction during our in¬ 
spections, and we have visited five or six hundred places. 

Senator Jones. Do you not think that was put in the law in order 
to give him the powers of a policeman to see that the law is being 
carried out? 

Mr. Smith. Exactly. 

Senator Jones. Why is it that the board has not directed him to 
make inspections to see that the law is complied with ? 

Mr. Smith. The board has not thought it necessary. It has thought 
that inspections sufficient have been made by the board itself. 

Senator Jones. You have made out of him simply a clerk? 

Mr. Smith. Largely so, yes. 

The Chairman. What have you to sav with regard to the saloons 
that are claimed to be within 400 feet of houses of religious worship. 


146 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

public school houses, colleges and universities? There are 21 here 
in a list that I have, which are claimed to be within that distance. 
You are familiar with them, are you not? 

Mr. Smith. Somewhat. 

The Chairman. Will you tell us what the method of the board is 
in making these measurements ? 

Mr. Smith. The measurements by the board are made by its mem¬ 
bers on the right-angle course. 

The Chairman. You say by the right-angle course. How far do 
you proceed from the entrance on a straight line before you turn on 
a right angle? 

Mr. Smith. To about the middle of the sidewalk, or path; taking 
the middle course, owing to the right of way given to pedestrians to 
keep to the right. If you were bound in that direction, you would 
naturally keep to the right there, and taking the center path as a 
conservative course. 

The Chairman. Some of the sidewalks of the city of Washington 
are unusually wide, are they not ? 

Mr. Smith. They are beautiful sidewalks and rather wide, some of 
them. 

The Chairman. The law requires that the measurements should 
be made by the shortest course of travel from entrance to entrance. 
Why did you adopt the method of going out to the middle of a wide 
sidewalk and making these measurements, instead of turning as soon 
as you got to a comfortable distance from the door in which a man 
could turn in going to the church or the schoolhouse ? 

Mr. Smith. There had to be a rule to govern the board in its de¬ 
cisions as to measurement, and we adopted the right-angle course, 
and in order to be consistent took from the door out to the point at 
which you must turn at right angles to the right or to the left. 

The Chairman. Exactly; but you could pursue the right-angle 
course and turn after you got 18 inches or 2 feet from the front of the 
door. 

Mr. Smith. Not always, sir. 

The Chairman. Why do you say not always. 

Mr. Smith. There may be such a thing as parking, over which the 
occupant of the premises has no control, and the turning to the right 
or to the left 18 inches from the doorway may be interfered with by 
that parking. 

The Chairman. But suppose there is no obstruction there ? 

Mr. Smith. The board feels that you can not have one course for 
one applicant and another for another. 

The Chairman. Have you laid down in published form the rule 
in that regard ? 

Mr. Smith. No. We have consistently lived up to that habit or 
rule, however. 

Senator Jones. Mr. Smith, I want to understand about this right- 
angle measurement. Suppose this is a church on one side of the street, 
and here is a saloon over here on another street, this being a public 
street here, and you want to measure from the nearest entrance of 
this saloon to the nearest entrance of the church [indicating]. Do 
you mean that you would go straight up on the sidewalk until you 
got opposite the church entrance and then go across at right angles ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


147 


Mr. Smith. No. 

Senator Jones. Or do you mean that you would go up to the 
crossing of the other street across there and then go down ? How 
would you measure ? 

Mr. Smith. We would not take any radical rule for enforcing our 
method of measurement; and where the church door is directly 
opposite a saloon, the board would decide to refuse a license because 
of its proximity, its dangerous proximity, to the church. 

Senator Jones. Do not go on with that now. I want you to come 
right here to my example. Here is a saloon over here across the 
street, and farther down here is a church. I want to know how 
you would measure from the nearest entrance of the saloon to the 
nearest entrance of the church ? 

Mr. Smith. In that case, both being near to their respective cor¬ 
ners, the church to one corner and the saloon to the other one, we 
would take the course in that way. 

Senator Jones. What do you mean by “that way”? You would 
go up the sidewalk to the crossing and then across at right angles 
and then down to the entrance ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Why not go straight across the public right of 
way, diagonally? 

Mr. Smith. I say we might do it in that case, where one is almost 
opposite the other. 

Senator Jones. Would you do it ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know. I know of one case, that of Gabriel, 
where we did not do it. 

Senator Jones. You say you have adopted a general rule that you 
have been consistent in following all of that time. According to 
that rule, would you do that ? 

Mr. Smith. The exception once in a while proves the rule. 

Senator Jones. In other words, you have applied your rule of meas¬ 
urement as you saw fit with reference to each particular place, have 
you not ? 

Mr. Smith. To some extent. 

Senator Thompson. You have not applied the rule of the shortest 
course of travel ? 

Mr. Smith. I think we have'; yes. 

Senator Thompson. You say that turning square corners would be 
the shortest course—the natural way—to travel in going from the 
saloon to the church ? 

Mr. Smith. I think so, consistent with the local law on the subject. 

Senator Thompson. You think the police regulations should over¬ 
turn the law which provides for the shortest course of travel ? 

Mr. Smith. I say that everybody has to pay due regard to the law 
of the land—the law of the municipality. 

Senator Thompson. Do you not think that the law of the United 
States Government should also be followed, as well as the police 

regulations ? . 

Mr. Smith. I know of only one way, and that is to have harmony 

in applying the law. . ... , . 

Senator Thompson. Do you not think there would be complete 
harmony by following the shortest course of travel always, without 
exception, according to the law on the question ? 

84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3-11 


148 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Smith. I take it that we have followed the shortest course of 
travel. 

Senator Thompson. Your idea is that the turning of square 
corners is the shortest course of travel within the meaning of the law ? 

Mr. Smith. When you consider the police regulations which govern 
the pedestrian on the sidewalk or the street, yes. 

Senator Thompson. Then you permit the police regulations to 
overturn the law in that respect ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not say that. 

The Chairman. Is there anything in the police regulations requiring 
a man on leaving the entrance on a street to go out to the center of 
the sidewalk before he turns either way in walking along the side¬ 
walk ? 

Mr. Smith. No; but the members of the board would have diffi¬ 
culty in determining just how close he might go. He might be 
obstructed, and might have to walk out a little bit. 

The Chairman. Then you have added something to the police 
regulations ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Your idea is that a man on leaving the entrance 
must go out to the center of the sidewalk, no matter how wide it is ? 

Mr. Smith. Not “must.” He may have to do it and probably he 
might do it, as when a man is coming from a saloon he might meet 
some one else, and he would have to go right to the center of the 
sidewalk. 

Senator Thompson. Is that your explanation of the difference in 
these measurements ? 

Mr. Smith. Such as—— 

Senator Thompson. There are 21 different places here in this list 
that has been submitted, where it is claimed there have been violations 
of the law. Each place it is claimed is located within 400 feet of a 
house of religious worship, a public school house, a college, or a 
university. Is that your explanation in all of these cases ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, I expect so, except also that the former board 
took the same view of the situation as to measurement as the present 
board does, and placed licensees in locations that are counted among 
those 21—or 18, I think there were. 

Senator Thompson. If you are making a measurement from a 
saloon to a schoolhouse or church, if you ascertain by the square- 
corner measurement that it is 401 feet, you permit the saloon to 
operate. Is that it ? 

Mr. Smith. It may be permitted, being over 400 feet. 

Senator Thompson. Do you remember any case where you ever 
refused it when it was within that limit? 

Mr. Smith. I do not at the present time. 

Senator Thompson. Do you not think that it would be consistent 
and within the policy of the law to resolve that difference of 1 foot in 
favor of the decency of the neighborhood ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. In favor of the school or in favor of- the church 
rather than in favor of the saloon? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. Without any question, if there are conditions 
in evidence that would make it most desirable to abandon the saloon, 
the board would do it and do it gladly. 


EXCISE BOARD OE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


149 


Senator Jones. Did you ever do it in any ease ? 

Mr. Smith. Senator, I do not recall individual cases. 

Senator Jones. You do not remember any case where the difference 
was 1 or 2 feet, and you cut it out, resolving the doubt against the 
saloon ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall any just now. 

The Chairman. Are you familiar with the conditions as to parking 
m front of the saloon of John E. Mergner, 415 East Capitol Street? 

Mr. Smith. I have been there and measured the distance to the 
school around the corner. 

The Chairman. Is there an iron fence running on one side of the 
entrance to that saloon at that place, nearly crossing the sidewalk ? 

Mr. Smith. Out to the sidewalk, I thought. 

The Chairman . How long is that fence, do you remember ? 

Mr. Smith. I would not like to say, but my recollection places it 
about 30 feet, I should say from memory. 

The Chairman. Do you remember making the measurement from 
the entrance of the saloon to the public school near there ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; we did. By u we” I mean the board. 

The Chairman. You measured first along the length of the fence, 
and after you passed the fence-you turned and went toward the school- 
house ? 

Mr. Smith. That was the only thing we could do, sir, unless we 
stepped over the fence. 

The Chairman. Was it brought to your attention that that fence 
was put up there after this law went into effect ? 

Mr. Smith. No. I thought if it had no business being there the 
proper authorities would have it removed. 

Senator Jones. It came out from the parking, did it not? 

Mr. Smith. Yes; it was on the parking, Senator. 

Senator Jones. And there was an entrance through that on one 
side, away from the school, so people could come through it—a little 
gate? 

Mr. Smith. I think there was a gate, but it was locked when we 
were there. 

Senator Jones. With a padlock? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall the character of lock, but I think likely 
a padlock. 

Senator Jones. Did you make any inquiries as to why it was 
locked. 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. You did not make any inquiries about that situa¬ 
tion, did you, as to why that fence was put out there, or as to when 
it was put out there ? 

Mr. Smith. Conditions, as we find them, govern. 

Senator Jones. You make no investigation to see whether a thing 
has been put up to evade the law; you simply take it as you see it? 

Mr. Smith. The conditions that exist at the time of the inspec¬ 
tion, sir. 

Senator Jones. You do not consider that you are to see whether 
or not the spirit and intent of the law are being deliberately evaded 
or violated ? 

Mr. Smith. If such a condition was made manifest we would take 
notice of it. 


150 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Senator Jones. Was it not pretty manifest when this fence was 
built out over the parking there ? 

Mr. Smith. That was a regulation for the Federal authorities, I take 
it, and if it was not proper that it should be there they would have had 
it removed. 

Senator Jones. If you thought it was improperly there, you would, 
notwithstanding, go on and grant a license ? 

Mr. Smith. We never viewed that side of the situation. 

Senator Jones. Was not that situation presented to you when the 
application for license came up, and was not that called to the atten¬ 
tion of the board ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall that. 

Senator Jones. You do not know whether it was or not? 

Mr. Smith. I do not. 

Senator Jones. The records'will show, will they not? 

Mr. Smith. The record ought to show. 

Senator Jones. Suppose the record shows that, as a matter of 
fact, this fence was put out there after the law was passed and that 
the evident purpose of it was to evade the law, do you not think 
that the board acted improperly in granting a license under such a 
situation as that ? 

Mr. Smith. I think if the board knew that it was put there as a 
subterfuge only to obtain a license, and if, notwithstanding that and 
in possession of that statement, the board granted a license, it may 
be considered improperly done. 

Senator Jones. The record, then, will show with reference to that? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know whether I brought that. That is not 
one of the cases you asked for. 

Senator Jones. We will ask for it. 

Mr. Smith. All right, sir. 

The Chairman. I will ask you now to send us the record in that 
case. 

Mr. Smith. I shall be glad to, Senator. 

The Chairman. You are familiar with the location of the saloon of 
Miller Bros., at the corner of Fourteenth and Pennsylvania Avenue? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there not three saloons in that block on the E 
Street side, next to Pennsylvania Avenue, besides Millers’ ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes; Gerstenberg’s, Shoomaker’s, and Engel’s. 

The Chairman. Miller Bros, originally had their entrance on E 
Street, facing Pennsylvania Avenue ? 

Mr. Smith. Facing E Street. 

The Chairman. They changed that entrance around to the Four¬ 
teenth Street side and were granted a license, were they not ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. They were first refused a license on E Street, 
and some two or three weeks afterwards they made application for a 
new license situated on Fourteenth Street, or around the corner from 
the former entrance, for the same saloon. 

The Chairman. The location of the saloon, however, was not changed 
at all? 

Mr. Smith. Not a bit. 

The Chairman. Do you not regard that as a subterfuge ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not think so, Senator. The law has been strictly 
complied with. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 151 

The Chairman. The law probably has been technically complied 
with, but as a matter of fact there are four saloons up there on the 
one side of that block. 

Mr. Smith. I do not so regard it. 

Senator Jones. Do you think that is conclusive? 

Mr. Smith. Because I think so, that does not make it so. 

Senator Jones. The saloon is exactly the same as it was before, 
except the entrance ? 

Mr. Smith. The entrance is different from before, and that is all. 

Senator Jones. But the saloon is just the same, except the en¬ 
trance ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; except the entrance. 

Senator Jones. The law does not say that there shall not be more 
than three entrances on a block, does it? It says not more than 
three saloons. Do you construe that to mean entrances ? 

Mr. Smith. The Miller Bros, can not do business on E Street. 

Senator Jones. They are doing business on E Street. Their saloon 
is on E Street, and the entrance is on Fourteenth. 

Mr. Smith. I do not so regard it. Senator. 

Senator Jones. They are doing business just as they did before, 
except that they have a different entrance ? 

Mr. Smith. Correct. 

Senator Jones. And they are doing it in the same space exactly? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And just exactly in the same place where you 
refused the license before. Is not that correct? 

Mr. Smith. A change only as to door. 

Senator Jones. Only as to door and entrance. You consider that 
as a change of business, a change in the place of business ? 

Mr. Smith. I do. 

Senator Jones. You do not consider that an evasion of the law? 

Mr. Smith. I.do not. 

Senator Jones. Either in spirit or letter? 

Mr. Smith. I do not think so, Senator. 

Senator Thompson. Do you not regard that as a subterfuge in 
order to get a license? 

Mr. Smith. I do not think so, Senator. 

Senator Thompson. You do not? 

Mr. Smith. Really. 

Senator Thompson. Any more than the building of a fence to 
make the distance a little bit farther, or the making of a flower bed 
or grass plot? 

Mr. Smith. No; about the same. 

The Chairman. Gen. Smith, who represented Mr. Miller at the 
hearing at which his license was granted? 

Mr. Smith. Mr. M. P. Sullivan. 

The Chairman. A lawyer? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know whether he is a lawyer or not. He is a 
handy man in talking, and represented many an applicant. 

The Chairman. Were there not five saloons on that side of the 
block before this law went into effect ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who owned those saloons? 


152 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Smith. Mr. Bush, Mr. Engel, Mr. Shoomaker, Mr. Gerstenberg, 
and the Miller Bros. 

The Chairman. The board first decided to grant licenses to Gersten¬ 
berg, Shoomaker, and Bush, did it not ? 

Mr. Smith. It did. 

The Chairman. Did you not instruct the assessor to issue a license 
to Mr. Bush on October 30, 1914 ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know that the notice had gone forth to the 
assessor. It may have. 

The Chairman. Why did you decide to turn Mr. Bush down on 
October 30 and issue a license to Mr. Engel instead ? 

Mr. Smith. The board thought it was quite within its rights to do 
so. It was not yet too late, and believing that the best interests of 
the interested persons would be served, it changed from Bush to 
Engel. Mr. Engel was seriously involved, and Mr. Bush had a good 
lively business outside of the liquor business; and following a rule 
of the board, it does the least damage possible to either personal or 
property interests. 

The Chairman. Was not that all brought out before you decided 
to grant the license to Bush ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Who brought it to your attention? 

Mr. Smith. We discovered it somehow on Friday evening. 

The Chairman. On Friday evening, the 30th ? 

Mr. Smith. Friday, the 29th, was it not ? Well, that is immaterial. 
It was on Friday evening. 

The Chairman. How did you discover it? 

Mr. Smith. I do not just recollect. We talked as we were signing 
the jackets, and when we came to either one or the other of them the 
discussion came up, and we decided that the best interests would be 
served by changing those two around. 

The Chairman. You mean a discussion within the board itself? 

Mr. Smith. I think so. 

The Chairman. Was there an executive session? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Gen. Smith, you had had hearings on these different 
applications, had you not ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Rather extensive hearings ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And the board had reached the conclusion that it 
should grant licenses to Bush, Gerstenberg, and Shoomaker? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And you had formerly taken action to that effect ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And this was up to the 30th of October? 

Mr. Smith. If the 30th was Friday evening. 

Senator Jones. These gentlemen had appeared before you by their 
attorneys, had they not? 

Mr. Smith. Both in person and through representatives. 

Senator Jones. And you thought all the facts had been brought to 
your attention, did you, when you granted the license? 

Mr. Smith. I expect so. 

Senator Jones. You know whether you did or not, do you not? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


153 


Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; I suppose we did. 

Senator Jones. Who brought any additional facts to your atten¬ 
tion with reference to Bush and Engel and their business affairs ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall, Senator. 

Senator Jones. Did anybody? 

Mr. Smith. We were signing up the applications, for or against, 
and discussion centered on one or two of these applications as the 
work was going on. 

Senator Jones. What led to any further discussion with reference 
to these? You had already decided who should have the,licenses; 
and do you not know that as a matter of fact you had directed the 
assessor to issue the licenses? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know that, Senator; but I am willing to admit 
that it may have been done without my knowledge. The clerk may 
have forwarded the list to the assessor before the time of announce¬ 
ment, which was Saturday morning. 

Senator Jones. He had been directed to do that? 

Mr. Smith. I have no doubt, but I can not recall that particular 
instance out of .412. 

Senator Jones. You seem to recall that some special information 
had been brought to your attention with reference to Engel and Bush ? 

Mr. Smith. There are many cases that have been brought to my 
attention through the press and the investigations held here. That 
is the only way that I know it. 

Senator Jones. Had any attorneys approached you or the other 
members of the board, to your knowledge, calling your attention to 
additional facts with reference to Mr. Engel or Mr. Bush ? 

Mr. Smith. Not a soul, Senator. 

Senator Jones. Had anybody telephoned to you or the board sug¬ 
gesting that a change should be made ? 

Mr. Smith. Absolutely no one, without any equivocation. 

Senator Jones. Had any Senator or Representative spoken to you 
about either Mr. Bush or Mr. Engel ? 

Mr. Smith. I can not recall that they did—those particular ones. 

Senator Jones. You do not remember, then, whether they did or 
did not? 

Mr. Smith. Whether they did or did not; no, sir. 

Senator Jones. You may have been spoken to by a Senator or 
Representative? 

Mr. Smith. Not at that particular time. 

Senator Jones. I am not asking about any particular time; I am 
asking you about Mr. Engel and Mr. Bush. 

Mr. Smith. I may have been spoken to some time during the 
pendency. 

Senator Jones. Do you remember whether or not any Senator or 
Representative spoke to you about Mr. Engel or Mr. Bush after you 
had decided to give Mr. Bush his license ? 

Mr. Smith. Not any at all. 

Senator Jones. Had any representative of any of the brewing 
interests spoken to you about it? 

Mr. Smith. Not any at all. 

Senator Jones. Had any representatives of any political organic 
zations spoken to you about it ? 

Mr. Smith. Not any at all, Senator. 


154 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRIQT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Jones. What particular facts about Mr. Engel's financial 
condition were brought to your attention after you had decided to 
give Mr. Bush his license? 

Mr. Smith. That they had spent a great deal of money on the 
premises and had been doing an unpaying business and were seriously 
involved financially. 

Senator Jones. You remember that very distinctly? 

Mr. Smith. I remember that before the hearing—before the writing 
up of the announcement of for or against. 

Senator Jones. You remember that very distinctly. Who told 
you that ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall. 

Senator Jones. You can not remember that? 

Mr. Smith. It was neither a lawyer nor anyone interested in the 
business nor interested in Engel, that I can recall. 

Senator Jones. How do you know that, if you do not remember 
anything about who it was ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I suppose there are some things that remain, 
or come to your attention while talking or acting, when a thing is 
not indicated by any other means. 

Senator Jones. What information came to you about Mr. Bush's 
condition after you had decided to grant him a license ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, it had appeared at the hearing that Mr. Bush 
had a good business outside of the liquor business. 

Senator Jones. So there was not any additional information that 
came to you about Mr. Bush ? 

Mr. Smith. Oh, not any; we just decided to change without any 
request from any outside source. 

Senator Jones. You said that you got some information. 

Mr. Smith. That was before the hearing, Senator. 

Senator Jones. I understood you to say a moment ago that you 
got some information about Mr. Engel after you had decided about 
the license, showing what he had expended, and his financial condition. 

Mr. Smith. I would like to be made clear on that. 

Senator Jones. That is what we want. 

Mr. Smith. I, personally, received no request or information from 
anyone during the Friday night or Friday afternoon that these 
licenses were being signed up. Exercising the privilege of a mem¬ 
ber of the board, I changed my mind about which of these two to 
grant. 

Senator Jones. Did the other members change their minds? 

Mr. Smith. They evidently did. They voted against Bush and for 
Engel. 

Senator Jones. Did you explain to the other members of the board 
that you had changed your mind ? 

Mr. Smith. They knew it. 

Senator Jones. Did you tell them why? 

Mr. Smith. They knew it. 

Senator Jones. Did you tell them why you had changed your mind ? 

Mr. Smith. I changed my mind because of the desire to do the 
least amount of damage- 

Senator Jones. I did not ask you that, General. I asked you if 
you told the other members of the board why you had changed your 
mind. 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 155 

Mr. Smith. Why, Senator, we were sitting at the table, three of us, 
and signing these things, and it came up in discussion when we came 
either to Bush or Engel, and it may have been me who said, “I think 
we are doing a wrong here.” 

Senator Jones. Do you remember whether you said that or not? 

Mr. Smith. Well, it was in general conversation. I may have said 
that in some other way. 

Senator Jones. I know you may have, but I want to know whether 
you did or did not. 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall doing it. 

Senator Jones. Did the other members of the board express their 
reasons for changing their minds ? 

Mr. Smith. In a general way we talked about the thing, but I da 
not know that they said why they would change their minds. They 
each wanted it made. 

Senator Jones. Who made the motion to change? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know that. 

Senator Jones. Will your records show? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir; they do not show the form of vote. We con¬ 
sider the cases and act upon them and keep a record of the action, 
generally—who was present, etc. 

Senator Jones. Was Mr. Sheehy a member of the board then ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

• Senator Jones. Mr. Bride and Mr. Baker were members? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. As a matter of fact, did not Mr. Baker suggest that 
the license should be changed from Mr. Bush to Mr. Engel ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not think so, Senator. 

Senator Jones. Did Mr. Bride? 

Mr. Smith. I can not say. I can not tell you who it was brought 
the thing up, unless it was myself, saying 11 Perhaps we made a 
mistake here. Let us see,” and we talked about it. 

Senator Jones. You talked about it, then, did you? 

Mr. Smith. We talked about it, the three of us, among ourselves, 
without any outside influence whatever beyond that had at the 
hearing. 

Senator Thompson. Mr. Smith, I understood you to say a while 
ago as to the difference in the manner of measurement of the various 
barrooms and saloons located within 400 feet, by the shortest course 
of travel, of public schools and barrooms, that you accounted for that 
by the difference in method of measurement ? 

Mr. Smith. Excuse me. Would you mind repeating that question ? 

Senator Thompson. I asked you a while ago if it was on account of 
the difference in method of measurement that there seemed to be a 
difference as to the 21 barrooms or saloons located within 400 feet of 
houses of religious worship and public schools, colleges, or universities, 
according to the shortest course of travel; and I understood you to 
say that the way you accounted for it was because of the meas¬ 
uring by square corners. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; they are measurements that were made by 
right angles. The measurements of the gentlemen who opposed us 
were by the straight line, as the crow flies. 


156 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Thompson. Where they were located on the same side of 
the street, and within a few doors, no question of that kind could 
arise, could it ? 

Mr. Smith. It should not. • 

Senator Thompson. How do you account for the location of the 
Bessler saloon at 922 Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Bartholomew 
Roddy saloon, 1001 C Street NW., both of which are stated to be 
within 400 feet of the Salvation Army barracks at 930 Pennsylvania 
Avenue ? 

Mr. Smith. The board does not believe that the law intended the 
Salvation Army or any kindred religious institution to be regarded as 
a house of religious worship, within the meaning of the law. 

Senator Thompson. Do you mean to say that you think that 
Congress placed discretion in the board to determine what would be 
a proper house of worship, and matters of that kind ? 

Mr. Smith. I give Congress credit for everything that I can, but 
I have to take my lead from the language of Congress as transmitted 
through the law. 

Senator Thompson. Are we to understand, then, that you do not 
regard the Salvation Army as a religious organization ? 

Mr. Smith. Maybe it is true. It is not a house of religious wor¬ 
ship. 

Senator Thompson. And that where they hold worship every day 
and every night should not be regarded as a house of religious wor- * 
ship within the meaning of the law ? 

Mr. Smith. I think not. 

Senator Thompson. That is the reason for the location of saloons 
in the neighborhood of their place, then, is it ? 

Mr. Smith. Ilj you will permit me- 

Senator Thompson. Did not the Salvation Army protest on the 
ground that they were a religious organization ? 

Mr. Smith. I think so. 

Senator Thompson. You regarded them as a religious organiza¬ 
tion, did you not ? 

Mr. Smith. Oh, yes. 

Senator Thompson. What other place have they for a place of 
worship than at 930 Pennsylvania Avenue- 

Mr. Smith. In order that I may be clearly understood: According 
to the belief of the board and according to the intent, Congress 
changed the word “place” and substituted “house,” for obvious 
reasons, we believe. 

Senator Thompson. Does not the Salvation Army hold religious 
worship within a building at that place? 

Mr. Smith. Yes; that would be a “place.” 

Senator Thompson. That is a house, is it not ? 

Mr. Smith. A house is something entirely appropriated for reli¬ 
gious purposes. 

Senator Thompson. Oh, that is the distinction you make—that it 
has to be a church? 

Mr. Smith. We take the intent of the law. 

Senator Thompson. It is a house used exclusively for religious 
worship ? Is that it ? 

Mr. Smith. That is our belief. 




EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 157 

Senator Thompson. There is no provision in the law to that effect, 
is there? 

Mr. Smith. Except that you changed the first draft of the law 
from “place of religious worship’’ to “house of religious worship/’ 
and for obvious reasons, we believe. Of course, if you wanted all 
religious houses to be so regarded, we take it that Congress would 
have said so. 

Senator Thompson. It does say “ house of religious worship,” 
does it not ? That is the language of the law ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes; it says “house” now. 

Senator Thompson. “Of religious worship” ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. And would you not consider a place where they 
held religious worship, no matter what denomination, every day and 
every night, to have as much importance as a fine cathedral that is 
closed all the week and holds services only on Sunday ? 

Mr. Smith. I give the organization the greatest amount of credit, 
of course, but I have to follow the law and state that a place of reli¬ 
gious worship may not be such as is intended by a house of religious 
worship. The Salvation Army and other religious organizations have 
places where they doubtless do a great deal of good, but the question 
came before the board, Is it a house of religious worship ? The board 
has decided that it is not. 

Senator Thompson. That the Salvation Army is not? 

Mr. Smith. Not within the meaning of the law. 

Senator Thompson. Then so far as that religious organization was 
concerned, you resolved any doubt of construction in favor of the 
saloon ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not think so. We tried to be just. Like most 
other people we may go wrong in our judgment, but it is honestly 
intended. 

Senator Thompson. The real reason for not having a saloon in 
the neighborhood of a church or a school is because it is regarded 
by the public generally as detrimental to order and proper decency 
around places of that kind. Is not that right? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; that is granted. May I read one sentence 
of the law ? 

Senator Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. Smith. Thank you (reading): 

No saloon, barroom, or other place wherein intoxicating liquor is sold at retail or 
wholesale, other than hotels and clubs, shall be licensed, allowed, or maintained 
within four hundred feet of any public schoolhouse * * * or within four hundred 

feet of any now established house of religious worship. 

According to that, the board may put a hotel or a club next door 
to a church and allow liquor to be dispensed there under license. 

Senator Thompson. You do not regard the saloon, of course, as a 
necessity, do you ? 

Mr. Smith. No. 

Senator Thompson. You do regard the church and the school as 
necessities, under our form of government, do you not? 

Mr. Smith. Exactly. 

Senator Thompson. If the saloon should interfere with the wor¬ 
ship or interfere with the school, even though it was more than 400 
feet away, do you not think the discretion allowed the board 


158 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


ought to be exercised in favor of a proper maintenance of a place of 
religious worship or a school ? 

Mr. Smith. Senator, the board had a particularly bad duty to per¬ 
form, a duty that was bound to work injury to some, and we had to 
eliminate 112 applicants for license and establish not more than 300 
places, and all those questions arose. We do not claim to be able, 
perhaps, to decide upon the intent of the law, as perhaps lawyers 
might; we simply put an honest layman’s construction on the intent 
of the law and hoped that it would be properly received, as the intent 
merits. 

Senator Thompson. But where there is a strong protest by a 
religious organization or by a large number of people as to the loca¬ 
tion of a saloon in a particular locality, do you not think the board 
should take that into consideration, resolving the doubt, if possible, 
in favor of the school or the place or house of religious worship and 
eliminate the saloon, instead of allowing it to injure the church or 
the school by its presence? 

Mr. Smith. The board would like to eliminate all from proximity 
to schools and churches. 

Senator Thompson. You have not done that in the exercise of 
your duties? 

Mr. Smith. It has a duty to perform, a duty it owes to the saloon 
man as well as the churchman, with all due respect to everybody 
concerned. 

Senator Thompson. Do you regard it as the duty of the board 
to have maintained 300 saloons in the District of Columbia ? 

Mr. Smith. I think largely so. I think that when Congress made 
this law and stipulated that there should not be more than 300 
saloons at $1,500 each, it had in mind $450,000, or 300 at $1,500 
each, equaling $450,000. 

Senator Thompson. Do you think Congress had more in mind the 
pecuniary consideration than it had the moral situation of the city? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know what it had in mind. 

Senator Thompson. It did say, “Not exceeding 300 saloons” ? 

Mr. Smith. It did. 

Senator Thompson. And the board has construed that to mean 
300—that you are to maintain that number ? Is that right ? 

Mr. Smith. I think that that is the intent. 

Senator Thompson. That there should be 300 saloons maintained 
in the city? 

Mr. Smith. I think so. I am glad there are not any more. 

The Chairman. You do not mean to testify, General, that you 
think there must be 300 saloons, regardless of whether they comply 
with your rules and regulations ? 

Mr. Smith. Oh, my, no, Senator. I mean that as long as 300 men 
apply and are found worthy and well qualified by the board to con¬ 
duct the liquor business in satisfactory locations, I think it is the 
duty of the board to place 300, under the law, and not to do anything 
unlawfully, or, indeed, that would be in any way reprehensible. 

Senator Dillingham. In fixing that number, did the board really 
have it in mind that the revenue to be derived was something that 
Congress was considering as being advisable or advantageous ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 159 

Mr. Smith. Well, Senator, we have to take the expression con¬ 
veyed through the law, and we assume- 

Senator Dillingham. No; just tell us how the board construed 
that? 

Mr. Smith. The board thought that if you wanted 300 not to be 
exceeded, you intended that 300 should be arrived at, and you in¬ 
creased the revenue from each by $500, and if we got 300 that were 
worthy and well qualified that brought the revenue up to the same 
figure, absolutely. In fact, I think it is a little in excess, now. 

Senator Dillingham. Then you thought that Congress really did 
have in mind the amount of revenue to be received out of this, rather 
than the control of the liquor traffic ? 

Mr. Smith. Taking that expression here, I should say yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. If Congress had said that it should not be less than 
100 nor more than 300, you would then regard it as necessary to 
have 300 saloons ? 

Mr. Smith. That is a phase of the situation that I have not given 
any thought to; but I should say that from the experience had in 
handling 412 applications from which to select 300, I think that the 
same condition might have obtained had the minimum number been 
named, as well as the maximum. 

Senator Jones. You still think that the number has to be main¬ 
tained unless Congress should reduce it? 

Mr. Smith. I should think so. Congress is explicit, generally. 

Senator Jones. Calling your attention to the location of a saloon 
at 1421 G Street NW., I will ask you if that is not within 400 feet of 
what is known as the Temple Business College, within a few doors ? 

Mr. Smith. The Temple Business College is not regarded as a 
school, within the meaning of the law. In speaking of schools, the 
law says “the public schools,” meaning institutions for learning under 
the control of the District of Columbia. That is the view taken by 
the board. 

Senator Jones. Does it not also say, “now located or established 
college, or university”? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Jones. You would not regard a business college, where 
hundreds of students go to obtain a business education, as an estab¬ 
lished college ? 

Mr. Smith. In name only. I should not so regard it. 

Senator Jones. Is that true as to Frank Endres’s place at 1015 I 
Street NW., which is within 400 feet of the Drillery Business College ? 
The same construction prevails there, that you do not regard the busi¬ 
ness college which young men and women attend to obtain a business 
education as an educational institution within the meaning of the 
law? 

Mr. Smith. We do not. 

Senator Jones. And in those instances you resolved the construc¬ 
tion in favor of maintaining the saloons, although they may be a detri¬ 
ment to those schools ? 

Mr. Smith. The least damage to personal and property interests. 

Senator Jones. I will ask you as to the location of Michael Mor¬ 
ris’s place at 3006 M Street NW., which is within 400 feet of the 
Central Union Mission and within 400 feet of a Jewish house of wor¬ 
ship and within 400 feet of a school ? What have you to say as to the 



160 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

location of a place of that kind within the 400-foot limit from these 
institutions ? 

Mr. Smith. The institutions excepted by the law have been duly 
regarded, sir, and the board carefully measured the distance from 
the school to the proposed saloon and found it in excess of 400 feet. 

Senator Jones. Of all of those places ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know about the Jewish house of worship. I 
do not know about that. I never have seen such there. 

Senator Jones. You examined the location, did you not, before 
locating the saloon ? 

Mr. Smith. We examined the location and measured from the 
school to the proposed bar. 

Senator Jones. General, all of these institutions protested and 
made a showing at the time of the license hearing ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recollect. The record wifi show that, sir. 

Senator Jones. If they did, anyhow, the board did not regard that 
as an infraction of the law and exclude that place ? 

Mr. Smith. Evidently not. 

The Chairman. Returning to the Salvation Army: Why is it that 
you do not consider that a house of religious worship ? 

Mr. Smith. We take it from the law that a house, to be a house 
of religious worship, must be such in its entirety. 

The Chairman. What other business is carried on in the Salvation 
Army barracks besides the Salvation Army work ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know. It is not a house for religious worship, 
according to our interpretation. It may be along some lines, but we 
have not so regarded it. 

The Chairman. In order to come within this rule, that house 
would have to be devoted to some other purposes besides Salvation 
Army purposes in order to be not a house of religious worship, would 
it not ? 

Mr. Smith. No; I do not take it so, Senator. 

The Chairman. Then tell me specifically why it is not a house of 
religious worship. It is devoted exclusively to religious purposes, 
is it not ? 

Mr. Smith. It may not be. There may be some course of labor 
work there. 

The Chairman. There may be ? 

Mr. Smith. There may be. 

The Chairman. But you do not know ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know. I have to be truthful. 

The Chairman. We will leave that phase of the subject now. 
The law requires that hotels with less than 50 rooms shall not be 
allowed to have saloon licenses, does it not ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know of a hotel having less than 50 rooms 
for guests wherein a license has been established. 

The Chairman. Why do you say less than 50 rooms for guests ? 

Mr. Smith. The law stipulates that a hotel, to be a hotel within 
the meaning of the excise law, shall have 50 rooms for guests, or more. 
You say less than 50 rooms. I do not know, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not know of any hotels in the District of 
Columbia with less than 50 rooms for guests that have saloon licenses ? 

Mr. Smith. Not any. What the District authorities do outside of 
the excise board, of course we do not know; but they can not handle 
the liquor question. We do that. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 161 

The Chairman. What about the hotel of J. H. De Atley, at 1222 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW. ? 

Mr. Smith. That has not got 50 rooms. 

The Chairman. Is not that a hotel ? 

Mr. Smith. It may be in name. It may be licensed by the District 
authorities, but not by the excise board. 

The Chairman. Was it not brought out in the hearings before you 
that it was a hotel and was run as a hotel and licensed as a hotel and 
had less than 50 rooms ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

The Chairman. What about the place of Henry M. Marks, at 1000 
E Street NW. ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recollect whether that is within the 31 hotels 
or not. I am not sure on that point. If it has over 50 rooms, it would 
be regarded as a hotel; if not, it would be enjoying a license and it 
would be recognized as a restaurant by the excise board. 

The Chairman. Do you think the board has a right to license a 
place as a restaurant which is really run as a hotel and has less than 
50 rooms ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know what other business is conducted there. 
They seemed adequately equipped to conduct a restaurant business, 
and that is what the excise board was interested in. 

The Chairman. I will give you a list of places that are claimed to 
be operated as hotels having less than 50 rooms for guests- 

Mr. Smith. Senator, I beg your pardon, before you commence: A 
place may be a hotel within the meaning of the District Commission¬ 
ers’ authority, but to be a hotel within the meaning of the law and to 
be recognized as such by the excise board, it must have over 50 rooms. 

The Chairman. I understand. 

Mr. Smith. Oh, you understand. Pardon me. 

The Chairman. The law does not permit you to license a saloon 
in a hotel that has less than 50 rooms ? 

Mr. Smith. We do not mention the word * ‘hotel” in connection 
with such an establishment. 

The Chairman. I understand; but is it not the fact that the law 
does? 

Mr. Smith. No; I think not, sir. 

The Chairman. This is the law [reading]: 

Hereafter no license shall be issued to a hotel having less than fifty bedrooms for 
guests, nor to any hotel the character of which, or the character of the proprietor or 
manager of which, is shown to be objectionable to said board. 

Do you mean to say that you can construe that law to mean that 
a hotel with less than 50 rooms, or a place with less than 50 rooms, 
where they entertain the public for pay, is not a hotel ? 

Mr. Smith. Not a hotel, so far as we know. 

The Chairman. The law is plain [reading]: 

Hereafter no license shall be issued to a hotel having less than fifty bedrooms for 
guests. 

I will ask you if it was not claimed that the following places were 
hotels with less than 50 rooms for guests before you issued your 
licenses: Geo. J. Bessler, 922 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.; Gustav 
Buchholz, 1411 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.: J. H. De Atley, 1222 
Pennsylvania Avenue'NW.; Harvey Co. (Inc.), 1016 Pennsylvania 



162 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Avenue NW.; Charles Mades, 300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.; 
Henry M. Marks, 1000 E Street NW.; John M. Perreard, 513 Thir¬ 
teenth Street NW.; Jos. Schladt, 1238 Wisconsin Avenue. 

Mr. Smith. They are not hotels, according to our records. 

The Chairman. But I will ask you if it was not represented to 
you, if testimony was not developed at the hearings at the conclusion 
of which you issued the licenses, and if it was not in the evidence, that 
they were hotels? 

Mr. Smith. I think not. 

The Chairman. That they had licenses as hotels? 

Mr. Smith. I think not. We could not license such a place as a 
hotel. 

The Chairman. I mean that they were licensed by the District as 
hotels. 

Mr. Smith. Oh, I do not know that. 

The Chairman. Would it not be your duty, where it was shown to 
you that a hotel with less than 50 rooms was licensed by the District 
as a hotel, to decline a license? 

Mr. Smith. I think not. 

The Chairman. I want to return, now, to the question of houses 
of religious worship, and ask you why you consider the building occu¬ 
pied by the Central Union Mission not a house of religious worship ? 

Mr. Smith. For the same reason. Senator, except that it is more 
positively a place where business is conducted in connection with 
religious services. 

The Chairman. What business is conducted in connection with 
the religious services ? 

Mr. Smith. They have employment for wayfarers. 

The Chairman. Exactly; but is not that a part of the religious and 
benevolent purposes of the institution ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, Senator, the excise board may be mistaken; I do 
not claim that we are right in every particular; but our idea is, our 
construction of the law in its intent is, that a house of religious wor¬ 
ship shall be what it is meant for—a church, and such places as that; 
not a boarding house or rooming house, or any place where wood is 
ohopped for the living of poor men. They are good institutions in 
their place, but the law does not say that we should recognize them as 
houses of religious worship. A house entirely appropriated to 
religious services would be a church. 

The Chairman. That is the construction which the board places 
on the .term “ house of religious worship”? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the construction is in favor of the saloon—the 
establishment of the saloon ? 

Mr. Smith. The board did not think so, and does not yet. 

The Chairman. You have resolved your construction in favor of 
the establishment of the saloon. When the question came before you 
in behalf of those who wanted the license refused, as to whether or not 
the Salvation Army and the Central Union Mission were houses of 
religious worship, you resolved that question in favor of the saloons in 
both instances ? 

Mr. Smith. Unfortunately so, for the would-be houses. 

The Chairman. Is there a saloon near the Y. M. C. A. Building? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; that of a Mrs. Klotz. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


163 


The Chairman. How near? 

Mr. Smith. Well, it is—I would not like to say. 

The Chairman. Is it within 400 feet ? 

Mr. Smith. It is more than 400 feet; it is nearly 500, if not quite. 
It is a long block from Seventeenth to Eighteenth. 

The Chairman. The board construed the law to mean that saloons 
and clubs might be located in residence districts, did it not ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The law itself does not make any exception as to 
clubs, does it ? 

Mr. Smith. The law made many an exception for hotels and clubs. 

The Chairman. You mean the excise law? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Let me read the law [reading]: 

Hereafter no license shall be granted for the establishment or maintenance of a bar¬ 
room or other place for the sale of intoxicating liquors, otherwise than in sealed pack¬ 
ages and not to be drunk on the premises, in any resident portion of the District of 
Columbia. 

I will ask you if the clubs which I shall now name are not located 
in the residence districts, and if they do not operate bars: The Army 
and Navy Club; the Commercial Club; Century Club; Cosmos Club; 
Elks Club; Metropolitan Club; Monticello Club; and University Club ? 

Mr. Smith. Those are all in residence districts. 

The Chairman. In other words, the board deliberately legislated 
on that subject, did it not? 

Mr. Smith. I do not think we legislated on the subject, Senator. 

The Chairman. What do you call it ? 

Mr. Smith. I think that we made a rule that comprehended what 
was expressed, but not in so many words, by the law. 

The Chairman. Will you explain why you held that the law did 
not prohibit the location of saloons and clubs in residence districts ? 

Mr. Smith. Paragraph 2 and paragraph 14 would seem to cover 
that very thoroughly. 

The Chairman. Paragraph 2 of what? 

Mr. Smith. Of the excise law. 

The Chairman. Will you please read the part to which you refer? 

Mr. Smith. A portion of the excise law which, upon casual reading 
by itself, would seem to exclude the granting of barroom licenses to 
hotels and clubs in the residential portion of the District of Columbia, 
reads as follows: 

Hereafter no license shall be granted for the establishment or maintenance of a 
barroom or other place for the sale of intoxicating liquors— 

Then on down- 

The Chairman (reading): 

Otherwise than in sealed packages and not to be drunk on the premises, in any 
residence portion of the District of Columbia. 

Mr. Smith. I have not got to the “provided” part. 

The Chairman. I have it here [reading]: 

Provided , That no license shall be granted for any saloon or barroom on any side 
of any square, block, or tract of land where less than fifty per centum of the foot 
frontage, not including saloons or hotels and clubs having barroom licenses under thii 
section, is used for business purposes. 

84513*—S. Doc. 981, 63-3-12 


164 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Smith. There is one exception—“hotels and clubs.” You will 
notice as to the wholesaler that the closing sentence there, “ nor shall 
intoxicating liquors be sold at wholesale outside of the business dis¬ 
tricts as above provided,” contradicts the first part. 

The Chairman. I am not speaking of the wholesale proposition. 

Mr. Smith. In the absence of specific words permitting the licensing 
of hotels and clubs outside of the business districts, the board believe 
it is clearly shown that Congress intended to make a distinction 
between a barroom as such ana a barroom license held by a hotel or 
club, as is evidenced from the language just quoted. In determining 
on the 50 per cent of business frontage, the law says you must not 
include saloons or hotels and clubs having barroom licenses. Con¬ 
gress has seen fit to permit the issuance of barroom licenses in hotels 
and clubs near schools, churches, and colleges. 

The Chairman. In what instance ? 

Mr. Smith. The law says that no saloon, barroom, or other place 
wherein intoxicating liquor is sold at retail or wholesale, other than 
hotels and clubs, shall be licensed, allowed, or maintained within 
400 feet of any public schoolhouse or now located or established 
college or university, or within 400 feet of a now established house 
of religious worship, measured between the nearest entrance to each 
by the shortest course of travel between such place of business and 
such public schoolhouse, college, or university, or established house 
of religious worship. 

The Chairman. There is nothing in that paragraph referring to 
residence sections. 

Mr. Smith. It says in that very paragraph, Senator, if you will 
excuse me, that “no saloon, barroom, or other place wherein intoxi¬ 
cating liquor is sold at retail or wholesale, other than hotels and 
clubs.” So that the excise board might have construed that as per¬ 
mitting clubs and hotels to be placed right next door to any church', 
college, school, or university. 

The Chairman. But that is within a business district. 

Mr. Smith. Is it not an exception for a church to be found in a 
business district? 

The Chairman. Not necessarily. 

Mr. Smith. It is the exception, however. 

The Chairman. It may be the exception in some cases, but the 
law itself does not have any reference to it. 

Mr. Smith. The board thought that it was an oversight and 
treated it as such. 

The Chairman. They thought it was an oversight on the part of 
Congress ? 

Mr. Smith. It may be a reprehensible thought, but it is the fact, sir. 

The Chairman. I will ask you, General, if you knew anything 
about the manner in which the saloon at the Grand Hotel had been 
conducted before you granted it a license, in November? 

Mr. Smith. In a general way, yes; with many things for and many 
against. 

The Chairman. What were the charges regarding that saloon in 
that hotel, if you remember ? 

Mr. Smith. I think that I have the record of the hearing here if 
you would like to have it, Senator. I can have it read into the pro* 
ceedings. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


165 


The Chairman. I will ask you what was the name of the pro¬ 
prietor ? 

Mr. Smith. It is a corporation. 

The Chairman. I know; but what was the name of the pro¬ 
prietor ? 

Mr. Smith. Charles H. Fred and Edward J. Gardiner, manager and 
treasurer, appeared. 

The Chairman. I will ask you if Edward J. Gardiner did not con¬ 
duct that saloon when the old board was in operation ? 

Mr. Smith. I understand so. 

The Chairman. I will ask you if his license was not taken away 
from him at one time ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know that. 

The Chairman. Did it not appear in the evidence ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know that. It is last October, the beginning 
of October. 

The Chairman. Was he not convicted of selling liquor to a minor, 
and was not his license taken away from him, and did not that appear 
in the evidence before you when his corporation applied for a renewal 
of the license ? 

Mr. Smith. It may have. The evidence is here. I have the case in 
hand here. 

The Chairman. But you do not recall ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall. I was not interested in saloons, 
much- 

The Chairman. Did it not appear in the evidence that he owned a 
majority of the stock in this corporation ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

The Chairman. And was not the organization of this corporation 
a mere subterfuge by which he proposed to secure a new license, 
knowing that he would have difficulty in getting it in his own name ? 

Mr. Smith. I can not say that I understood it as a subterfuge. 
He came before us clean, and after reviewing the evidence I can not 
see how we could have done other than we did. 

The Chairman. I will ask you if the police did not report that it 
was a place of public resort frequented by persons of questionable 
character ? 

Mr. Smith. The police made one report, and in the evidence it 
would seem to be another. 

The Chairman. You mean that the evidence that was adduced 
before you in your opinion contradicted the report of the police to 
such an extent that you felt justified in giving this man a license ? 

Mr. Smith. The Grand Hotel was represented by Mr. Henry E. 
Davis, and he made a statement which cleared the atmosphere some¬ 
what—the statement by Capt. Sprinkle, who made the damaging 
statement in the police report. 

The Chairman. We wifi pass from that. I will ask you if when 
you renewed the license for the Ebbitt House bar evidence was not 
adduced showing that that bar had been conducted in a disgraceful 
manner ? 

Mr. Smith. No; I do not agree that we had evidence to that effect. 

The Chairman. And that there had been disgraceful practices in 
connection with the sale of liquor in the Ebbitt House, in the restau¬ 
rant and bar ? 


166 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Smith. At the request of the Anti-Saloon League representa¬ 
tive the room was cleared and an effort was made to have evidence 
produced for the consideration of the board that it thought was too 
filthy for notice, and as it was not substantiated by any other than a 
dismissed or discharged employee of the Ebbitt House, we could not 
take it as seriously as if it had been substantiated. 

The Chairman. I will ask you if the papers were not at one time 
full of the details of an orgy that took place at the Ebbitt House 
one night ? 

Mr. 'Smith. I do not know. 

The Chairman. You do not recall that ? 

Mr. Smith. What do you refer to, may I ask, particularly and 
specifically ? 

The Chairman. Particularly the night after a football game here 
in Washington? 

Mr. Smith. Oh, yes; we heard all about that. 

The Chairman. Did not that corroborate what this employee testi¬ 
fied to ? 

Mr. Smith. No. 

The Chairman. Did not the papers themselves contain details 
as to drunken women being taken out of the place and put in carriages, 
limp and almost helpless ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not remember any such publication. 

The Chairman. You do not recall that at all? 

Mr. Smith. I certainly never saw it. 

The Chairman. Why did the board hold, General, that wholesale 
liquor houses were those that sold more than 5 gallons ? 

Mr. Smith. We thought we would put a subclass in the wholesale 
zones—places doing a 4%-gallon business that might be in the resi¬ 
dential district; where the big jobber must be continued in the business 
sections, such as the Clark Distilling Co. and several others- 

The Chairman. The law says retail or wholesale houses shall not 
be located in residence districts. 

Mr. Smith. May I ask if you have read the paragraph carefully, 
Senator ? 

The Chairman. I have tried to, sir. 

Mr. Smith. It contradicts itself plainly on the subject of wholesale. 
The closing part of the paragraph- 

The Chairman. Here is the closing part [reading]: 

Nor shall intoxicating liquors be sold at wholesale outside of the business districts 
as above provided. 

That is the closing part. That is a definite thing. 

Mr. Smith. That contradicts the upper part of the paragraph, 
which reads [reading] : 

Otherwise than in sealed packages and not to be drunk on the premises, in any resi¬ 
dence portion of the District of Columbia. 

That character of business is done by a wholesale establishment 
and not by a retail. 

The Chairman. And you would not have resolved that contra¬ 
diction on the side of people opposed to the existence of a saloon in 
residence districts? Did it not seem to be the policy of this law 
to exclude saloons from residential districts ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


167 


Mr. Smith. This is not a saloon under consideration now. 

Hie Chairman. I understand; but is it not the policy of this law 
to exclude the liquor traffic, as such, from residence districts? 

Mr. Smith. The law is explicit as to saloons, but not as to whole¬ 
salers. 

The Chairman. And you resolved that construction, again, in 
favor of the location of the saloon selling less than 5 gallons as not 
being a wholesale house in the view of the law. 

Mr. Smith. They are wholesalers. 

The Chairman. I mean as being intended to be located in residen¬ 
tial districts. 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about a fee charged by 
Mr. Joseph C. Sheehy for getting Mr. McCarthy a license to do busi¬ 
ness in the Evans Building ? 

Mr. Smith. Not any more than what I have noticed in the press. 
I have not heard. 

The Chairman. Did you read Justice Stafford’s decision, stating 
that to charge a fee of that kind was contrary to public policy and 
good morals? 

Mr. Smith. I did not see the opinion published. 

The Chairman. Have you ever seen it ? 

Mr. Smith. I have not. 

The Chairman. I will state for your information now that Justice 
Stafford held that for a lawyer to charge a fee of that kind to represent 
a man to get a license was against public policy and good morals. 
After he had charged a fee of that kind the board permitted him to 
appear before it in other cases ? 

Mr. Smith. The gentleman referred to had been a member of the 
excise board. We were in close touch with him up to the time of his 
leaving—a manly, fearless, conscientious official, a lawyer; and he 
asked us after he left the board if we would have any objection to his 
appearing before the board as a lawyer and we told him no, that there 
could be no reason against it that we could see. We were not lawyers, 
but as long as a man’s record is clean it does not much matter 
where he performs his professional duties, as long as he gets adequate 
compensation according to the measure made by himself. 

The Chairman. Do you agree with Justice Stafford that a fee of 
$5,000 charged by a lawyer for an effort to get a license for a man is 
contrary to public policy and good morals—a contingent fee ? 

Mr. Smith. Senator, I do not think that it would be my business 
as a member of the board or chairman of the board to ask a lawyer 
how much fee he was to charge or receive for services in such and 
such a case, or to ask the applicant “How much are you paying your 
lawyer?” I might just as well be permitted to ask the Anti-Saloon 
League’s lawyer how much money he is receiving. 

The Chairman. We have asked him that already. 

Mr. Smith. I have not; I have not followed that matter out. 

The Chairman. He gets $2,000 a year. 

Mr. Smith. He earns it. 

The Chairman. I agree with you on that point. 

Mr. Smith. And we are not idlers. 

Senator Dillingham. May I ask you this question: Did you ever 
know that this fee was $5,000 ? 


168 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Smith. No, sir; I did not know anything about the fee, said to 
be $5,000, until the case was brought into court. 

Senator Dillingham. Did he continue to appear before you after 
that fact became known to you ? 

Mr. Smith. I think he has had one or two cases. 

Senator Dillingham. Upon what did you think that he based or 
estimated the value of his services ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know, Senator. My experience with profes¬ 
sional gentlemen, lawyers particularly, is that they have a knack of 
estimating the value of their own services individually and charging 
accordingly, dependent upon the purse strings of the client. 

Senator Dillingham. Did it occur to you that in a case where 
there was a charge of $5,000, the client in such a case as that paid 
it because of his supposed influence with the board or because of the 
amount of work that he did, or the character of the work that he did ? 

Mr. Smith. I can not say, Senator. Really, it is a subject that we 
did not feel it was our duty to inquire about. 

Senator Dillingham. General, do you not think that it would be 
an imputation upon the integrity of the board to have a man appear¬ 
ing and charging those fees, he himself having formerly been a member 
of the board? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know, Senator, whether there is another 
lawyer—I can furnish the committee with the names of all the 
lawyers who appeared before the board- 

The Chairman. That is in the record. 

Mr. Smith. And the number of cases handled by each and the 
board’s disposition of such cases. There is not one case that the 
board knows about with regard to the fee or amount of the fee, and it 
does not consider that it is its duty to inquire about it. 

Senator Dillingham. Should not the board, General, in defense of 
itself and its standing, know upon what ground those appearing before 
the board are basing excessive and exorbitant charges? 

Mr. Smith. We have no way of determining what value to put 
upon the individual service, or whether he has valued his own services 
at a proper figure or not. 

Senator Dillingham. I know; but ought not the board to have 
some judgment as to whether a practitioner before it makes his 
charges upon the ground of his supposed personal influence with the 
board or upon his skill in his employment? 

Mr. Smith. That is all foreign to the excise board. 

The Chairman. You are familiar with what has to be determined 
in order to grant a license ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. I would prefer that no lawyers appear at 
all, and I am just egotistic enough to believe that we could conduct 
the cases ourselves and arrive at as good a conclusion at least as we 
have in the past. 

The Chairman. As a matter of fact, there is nothing there to 
justify any special legal assistance for an applicant; the board itself 
can determine questions of fact in connection with all these appli¬ 
cations, and there is no special necessity for the services of a lawyer 
by applicants, is there ? 

Mr. Smith. Not any. I do not consider them necessary at all. 

The Chairman. Do you see anything in the work that a man 
would have to do in representing an applicant that would justify a 
charge of $5,000 ? 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


169 


Mr. Smith. No. 

4 The Chairman. From your own standpoint—I am asking you now 
from your own standpoint, not from a lawyer’s standpoint. 

Mr. Smith. A plain business man’s opinion ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Smith. I think it very excessive; but that does not make it so. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about the Philadelphia 
House, General? 

Mr. Smith. No. I visited there once. 

The Chairman. Did you not visit the Philadelphia House in com¬ 
pany with the other members of the board and Mr. Shoemaker ? 

Mr. Smith. Down on Pennsylvania Avenue? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you remember conditions that you observed 
there ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you see women drinking there, with no meals 
being served ? 

Mr. Smith. I did not see women drinking. I saw the remains of 
meals, and there was music and dancing going on. It seemed to be 
an amusement rendezvous for the colored people of the neighbor¬ 
hood or that district. 

The Chairman. What do you know about the location of saloons 
within 300 feet of slums or alleys ? Have you had any protests on 
that point? 

Mr. Smith. We have had protests. We have protests against 
every case. 

The Chairman. Has the board declined any licenses to saloons on 
account of there being within 300 feet of an alley or slum ? 

Mr. Smith. We certainly have; but I do not just recall, really. 

The Chairman. For that reason? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; on account of the proximity which made it 
undesirable. I have in mind one that is on Third or Fourth Street. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about conditions in Jack- 
son Alley ? 

Mr. Smith. At North Capitol Street ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; it is Jackson Street. It is 32 feet wide. 

The Chairman. There are a number of saloons within 300 feet of 
that alley, are there not ? The records will show that, however. 

Mr. Smith. Yes. They are right opposite the Public Printing Office; 
yes. There are three there, and one wholesale. 

The Chairman. When protests were made with regard to the 
granting of licenses to places within 300 feet of that alley, did you 
examine the alley? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; we were there. 

The Chairman. And you did not consider that the conditions were 
sufficiently offensive to justify a refusal of these licenses? 

Mr. Smith. We inquired about the class of business in the several 
places and found that they did not serve colored people; and as the 
colored people predominated, at least in the alley as such, we thought 
that no harm could come from that source in those three places. 


170 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. Did you inspect Wylie Court, out in the north¬ 
east? 

Mr. Smith. Thirteenth Street; yes. 

The Chairman. Do you recall the conditions in that court? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Can you briefly describe them ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know about the conditions. I know there 
are houses there and people living in them. 

The Chairman. Do you consider that a disreputable condition ? 

Mr. Smith. I have never seen anything disreputable in it, nor has 
there been any evidence to warrant that belief. 

The Chairman. And you consider nothing disreputable about 
Jackson Alley? 

Mr. Smith. That is the former place ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Smith. No. 

The Chairman. Nor Snow Court? 

Mr. Smith. Where is that ? 

The Chairman. You do not recall the location of Snow Court? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir; not just now. 

The Chairman. You recall the western prohibition zone case, do 
you not ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Was the fact brought to your attention that at 
the time this law was enacted the western fire limit was at Thirty- 
fifth Street, and between that time and the time of the application 
of two saloons for renewal of licenses on Thirty-seventh Street the 
limit was extended so as to include those saloons ? Was that brought 
to your attention ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Why did the board grant the licenses ? 

Mr. Smith. On the advice of the corporation counsel. 

The Chairman. Have you a copy of his opinion ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. On what point did you ask his opinion, General ? 

Mr. Smith. The letter of inquiry is here, as well. 

The Chairman. Can you state briefly what the point was ? 

Mr. Smith. I would rather read it, if you will permit me, and if 
you have time. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Smith. It reads as follows [reading]: 

Excise Board for the District of Columbia, 

Washington, February 5, 1914. 

Dear Mr. Stephens: Referring to the hearing held before the excise board January 
29, on the change in the fire limits made by the Commissioners of the District of Co¬ 
lumbia, will you kindly give the board your views on the question? 

The board is anxious to dispose of this question as promptly as possible. 

Respectfully, 

Jos. C. Sheehy, Chairman. 

Mr. F. H. Stephens, 

Assistant Corporation Counsel , District oj Columbia. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


171 


Commissioners op the District of Columbia, 

Office of the Corporation Counsel, 

Washington , February 9, 1914 . 

The Excise Board of the District of Columbia. 

Gentlemen: In response to your request of the 5th instant for my views on the 
question argued before the board January 29, I submit herewith the following: 

The question, as I understand it, is whether a barroom west of the westerly line of 
the fire limits as they existed on the 4th day of March, 1913, can be licensed under the 
excise law. 

I refrain from citing the provisions of the law as the provisions requested are neces¬ 
sarily familiar to the members of the board. It is enough to say that the answer to 
the question depends what interpretation shall be given in point of time to the clause 
‘‘the westerly line of the fire limits as now established.” The phrase “now estab¬ 
lishedis used also in the same paragraph (par. 2), in relation to colleges or uni¬ 
versities, houses of religious worship, etc., and the meaning should of course be the 
same in both instances. 

1. It is a general rule of statutory construction that the statute speaks from the 
time it goes into effect and not from the time of the passage of the act. (1 Lewis 
Southerland on Statutory Construction, sec. 183, Encyc., 565.) Also it has been 
held that persons are not to be governed in their actions before the statute becomes 
operative. (Sammis v. Bennett, 22 L. R. A., 48.) 

If the words, “now established” have reference to the time of the passage of the 
act then effect is given to the act before the time prescribed by Congress, at which 
time the act went into effect, i. e., July 1, 1913. In other words, by its express pro¬ 
visions, the act did not go into effect until July 1, but by giving force to the language 
used as of the 4th day of March, effect is given to the act as of that time, that is to say, 
the act was in effect and the act was not in effect. Either the act became effective 
on the 4th day of March, or it did not. The plain provision of the law is that it did 
not. Therefore, no effect can be given to the language until the time it went into 
effect. 

******* 


Respectfully, 


F. H. Stephens, 
Assistant Corporation Counsel. 


The Chairman. Why did you not consult the corporation counsel 
instead of the assistant, General? 

Mr. Smith. The letter of inquiry was sent to his office. 

The Chairman. But you addressed your letter of inquiry to the 
assistant corporation counsel? 

Mr. Smith. He is the man who represented the corporation coun¬ 
sel's office at the hearings held on this subject, and, believing that he 
was in touch the closest, he was the one addressed. 

The Chairman. Have you revoked any licenses since the begin¬ 
ning of this license year? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. The revocation of licenses rests on the excise 
board only after police court conviction has been had. After one 
conviction we may revoke a license. On two convictions we must 
revoke a license. 

The Chairman. Did you bring the papers that were asked for ? 

Mr. Smith. All the papers are here, I believe, and everything in 
connection with the several cases mentioned in my subpoena or sum¬ 


mons. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else that occurs to you? If so, 
we would be glad to have you give it. If there is anything else you 
wish to say we should be very glad to hear it. 

Mr. Smith. There are so many things that I would like to say- 

The Chairman. If you wish to take a recess now, you may do so, 
and you can come on later this afternoon or in the morning; or if you 
wish, we may go ahead now. I do not think we have any more ques¬ 
tions to ask you at this time. 



172 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Smith. There is evidence, according to the daily papers, that 
seems to the board to be eminently unfair. We are charged with 
being culprits, evidently, and not permitted to face our accusers. 

The Chairman. You will be permitted to face them—all the wit¬ 
nesses that testified. 

Mr. Smith. We had not been invited to be present, and fearing 
that was the desire, we did not want to intrude, so that we were not 
here until you sent for us. 

The Chairman. You are invited to be present, and you will be 
furnished with a written transcript of all the testimony and be given 
every opportunity to answer. 

Mr. Smith. Thank you. That is all we want. We wanted to 
show that the performance of our duty has been done as fearlessly 
as duty ever was performed, without the dictate of any outside influ¬ 
ence whatever. We were only trying to get at this law and put it 
into force and effect honestly and perfectly. You can not please all 
sides, you know. 

The Chairman. You said that evidence has been given here that 
was unfair. You will be given every opportunity to answer that. 
If you would rather take the printed record of the evidence and read 
it all, so as to be sure that you get it, and answer it, you may do that, 
or you may proceed to answer it now, just as you please. 

Mr. Smith. Senator, as this accusation, or these accusations, 
amount to so much in the fife of myself, or what remains, as well as 
that of my colleagues, I desire to be set straight and right, and that 
I must have. My whole career through my life has been an inde¬ 
pendent, honest effort. I would like to have an extract from the 
evidence and have time to prepare an answer. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN J. MADDEN. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. State your full name. 

Mr. Madden. John J. Madden. 

The Chairman. Are you a resident of the District of Columbia ? 

Mr. Madden. I am, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been such ? 

Mr. Madden. Since 1902, I think. 

The Chairman. Where did you come from to this District ? 

Mr. Madden. I came from Philadelphia here. 

The Chairman. Are you operating a saloon? 

Mr. Madden. I am, sir. 

The Chairman. At what place? 

Mr. Madden. 401 Four-and-a-half Street. 

The Chairman. When were you granted a license ? 

Mr. Madden. It was the 14th of August. I bought the license. 
I bought where I am now. I surrendered my old license and bought 
this one. 

The Chairman. Did you make an effort to get a license when you 
were represented by Mi*. Sargeant ? 

Mr. Madden. Sargeant never represented me at the board at all. 
I made an effort to get a license up on Fourteenth Street, 2006; a 
man by the name of Stubblefield owned the property, and Sargeant 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


173 


was interested in it, and Stubblefield was to pay Sargeant, I think, 
$750 if I was successful in getting the license. I had a hearing, and 
the board rejected the license. Sargeant came to me again and told 
me there was a place out on First Street NE., near New York Avenue, 
and he took me out there and showed it to me and said that he had 
this piece of property for sale. I told him the place did not look to 
me to be 50 per cent business there, and I told him I would not bother 
with it. So Stubblefield persuaded me to make application for that 
place, and I had a hearing before the board, and the board went out 
and found that there was not 50 per cent business, and I told Sargeant, 
I said, “Look here, I told you there is not 50 per cent business there.” 
I put up some money with Sargeant, and half the money that I de¬ 
posited with him- 

The Chairman. For what purpose did you put up the money? 

Mr. Madden. In good faith, to bind the property, with the ex¬ 
pectation that I would get a license, you understand. 

The Chairman. Did you pay anything to anybody to represent 
you before the board at that time ? 

Mr. Madden. Alec Bell represented me before the board. 

The Chairman. At that time? 

Mr. Madden. In the two cases. There was another case up on 
B Street between Tenth and Eleventh. Sargeant got that place for 
me. There was a protest around there, and I did not expect to get 
the license because I did not know—the commission merchants 
around there protested, and I lost out there. So I made up my 
mind to buy a place and surrender my old license. I went down and 
bought Hogan out on Four-and-a-half and Virginia Avenue, surren¬ 
dered my license to the board and put up a new building there and 
fixed it up and got a license. 

The Chairman. That was the fourth attempt? 

Mr. Madden. Yes, sir; it was not any transfer at all. It was 
bought. I surrendered my old license. 

The Chairman. Who represented you at that last hearing? 

Mr. Madden. Alexander H. Bell and Joseph C. Sheehy. 

The Chairman. What did you pay them ? 

Mr. Madden. I paid Sheehy $1,100, and I paid Alexander Bell 

$ 200 . 

The Chairman. Why did you employ Mr. Sheehy? Were you 
not satisfied with Mr. Bell ? 

Mr. Madden. I wanted to see Sheehy—I knew he would take the 
case. I wanted to see him. He said he would not take the case 
without Alexander H. Bell going in with him; he would not put 
Mr. Bell out of the position, because he was my attorney all the time. 

The Chairman. Were you influenced by the fact that Mr. Sheehy 
had formerly been a member of the board ? 

Mr. Madden. No, I was not; not at all. 

The Chairman. Had you known Mr. Sheehy before ? 

Mr. Madden. I had; ves, sir. 

The Chairman. You Knew he had been a member of the board ? 

Mr. MLadden. Sure. 

The Chairman. Did Mr. Sargeant ask you why you did not let him 
represent you that last time ? 

Mr. Madden. No; he never represented me at the board at all. 
Sargeant told a story there yesterday; he never represented me- 

The Chairman. What is Sargeant? Is he a lawyer? 



174 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Madden. I do not know. He is some kind of a real estate man 
and dabbles around in real estate. 

The Chairman. Did you tell him that it took money to get through 
a thing of this kind? 

Mr. Madden. Not at all; no, indeed. I did not tell him anything 
of that kind. No, indeed. Why should I have done that? 

The Chairman. It evidently did take $1,300. 

Mr. Madden. That was Mr. Sheehy’ s price, and I paid it to him. 
I wanted to get the business. That was between me and Mr. Sheehy. 
Mr. Bell charged me $200. 

The Chairman. What had Bell charged you before ? 

Mr. Madden. $100 before, on the three cases that I lost out on. 

The Chairman. When was it that you got that license ? 

Mr. Madden. It was in August. 

The Chairman. I mean, through Bell and Sheehy ? 

Mr. Madden. It was in the month of June, I think. 

The Chairman. Of 1914? 

Mr. Madden. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And your license was renewed on November 1 ? 

Mr. Madden. Yes, sir; and I surrendered my old license when I 
got the other. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN E. CATTS. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Your name is John E. Catts ? 

Mr. Catts. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What is your position ? 

Mr. Catts. I am acting lieutenant, Metropolitan police. I have 
been detailed since the 22d of last August in regard to enforcing 
the Kenyon law. 

The Chairman. Are you a member of what is known as the vice 
squad ? 

Mr. Catts. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you had occasion to examine conditions in 
any of these hotels where bars are conducted ? 

Mr. Catts. Well, as far as the bar itself is concerned, that is out 
of our line of work. The only bars which we are concerned with are 
where women of questionable character gather, summer gardens, 
and so on. We made it our business to go around those places in 
order to see who were around there, and so on. 

The Chairman. What were those places? 

Mr. Catts. Gardiner’s, the Grand Hotel, Fifteenth and Pennsyl¬ 
vania avenue. 

The Chairman. They are known to the vice squad as places were 
women of questionable character resort? 

Mr. Catts. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that still known as that sort of a place ? 

Mr. Catts. He closed his summer garden on, I think, the 16th of 
this month. I had a warrant for Mr. Fred for selling liquor to minors, 
two young girls, and I served that warrant on January 15, on Friday. 

The Chairman. A warrant for serving liquor to minors ? 

Mr. Catts. Yes, sir. On the following Saturday he closed the 
summer garden. His hotel and bar have always been, as far as I 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 175 

could observe, conducted in a very good manner; but the summer 
garden was just the opposite. It was a very bad place, which I 
testified to before the excise board in the hearing. 

The Chairman. As a matter of fact, when liquors are served in 
that summer garden, do they not come from the bar ? 

Mr. Catts. Oh, yes. They have waiters that run backward and 
forward to and from the bar. 

The Chairman. It was practically a bar ? 

Mr. Catts. Yes, sir. Of course, the bar itself is located on Penn¬ 
sylvania Avenue, just next door to Polks Theater. This summer 
garden is in a basement right back under the hotel. 

The Chairman. You testified that Mr. Gardiner had been engaged 
in a business of that character? 

Mr. Catts. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What other place is known as a place of that kind, 
Lieutenant ? 

Mr. Catts. There were two cases before the excise board. One is 
the Tremont Hotel. 

The Chairman. What did you testify as to that ? 

Mr. Catts. We—when I say “we” I mean myself and the man 
that works with me, Mr. Howes—took several unmarried parties 
out of there. On one occasion I think we took two couples, two 
men and two women, and on another occasion I think it was five 
couples we took out, all charged with fornication. 

The Chairman. About what time was that ? What was the date 
of the visit ? 

Mr. Catts. On August 27 we took out two couples, two men and 
two women, and on September 5 it was three couples we took out. 
We took out three couples. When I went on this work I got infor¬ 
mation that that kind of business was going on there, with unmarried 
couples occupying rooms, and so on, and in making an investigation 
I arrested these people. 

The Chairman. Did you. testify to all this before the excise board ? 

Mr. Catts. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In connection with the hearing on the question of 
granting them a license ? 

Mr. Catts. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What do you know about the Philadelphia House ? 

Mr. Catts. Well, I know that it is frequented by colored women of 
questionable character, some of them that I know to be prostitutes; 
a large number of them. It is frequented by a large number of 
women of questionable character-prostitutes. 

The Chairman. Have you ever testified to that fact before the 
excise board ? 

Mr. Catts. No; I was not summoned on that case at all. 

The Chairman. They never asked you about that? 

Mr. Catts. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you any other places listed as places of that 
character ? 

Mr. Catts. The Marks Hotel. 

The Chairman. Tell us about that. 

Mr. Catts. Tenth and E Streets. Right now it is being frequented 
by the same kind of people. 

The Chairman. That is now being frequented by them? 


176 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Catts. Yes, sir. Unless we find these people violating some 
specific provision of the law we can not take any action. They go 
there and drink, and congregate there. It is a meeting place for 
women of questionable character. They meet men there and take 
them out, and so on. 

The Chairman. How long has it been such a place? 

Mr. Catts. He opened a summer garden about the time—just 
before his license was granted, I think, when he first made applica¬ 
tion, and the captain of the precinct reported on his license and he 
was not, as near as I can remember, conducting this summer 
garden- 

The Chairman. Was his place a questionable place? 

Mr. Catts. Yes, sir; but I was going to say, before the license was 
granted, while it was pending, I called the captain’s attention to this 
fact and he made a supplementary report to the excise board that 
they had opened up a summer garden, and so on; but I did not hear 
anything more from it. 

The Chairman. You were not asked to testify regarding it? 

Mr. Catts. No, sir. 

The Chairman. What other place, Lieutenant, did you have on 
your list ? 

Mr. Catts. We will take those three. They are about the worst 
in the city—as bad as they could possibly be. The Grand, before they 
closed the summer garden, was very bad. It is a very quiet place 
now, because without that summer garden they do very little business. 

The Chairman. There is no reason why they should not reopen 
that summer garden again when summer comes, is there ? 

Mr. Catts. As I understand, Gardiner closed his summer garden 
on the advice of his attorney. His case is pending and will be tried 
in a few days. 

The Chairman. Cases are now pending against him for selling to 
minors ? 

Mr. Catts. Yes, sir; two cases. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about the Joseph Schladt 
place, at 1238 Wisconsin Avenue ? 

Mr. Catts. No, sir; I do not know. I know where it is, but we 
have had to confine ourselves to the down-town section, and we found 
lots to do. That is over in Georgetown, and we have not gotten 
over there yet. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about conditions in any 
of those alleys ? Do you know anything about conditions in Jackson 
Alley? 

Mr. Catts. No; I know it is occupied by colored people, and so 
on, but I do not know anything that is particularly wrong there. 

The Chairman. Or Snow Court. 

Mr. Catts. All those are about the same thing. As I said, my 
specialty is looking after the Kenyon law. I do not know anything 
of that kind in those places. 

The Chairman. Have you found anything of that kind in connec¬ 
tion with any of the saloons that are being conducted as such? 

Mr. Catts. Only these that I stated. 

The Chairman. You do know that those three places you have 
mentioned are notorious places and have been for a long time? 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


177 


Mr. Catts. No, indeed. Marks’s Hotel at Tenth and E opened 
their summer garden along about last October, and since that time 
it has been running. I entered those places one night with Mr. Shoe¬ 
maker the Marks, the Grand, and the Philadelphia House—and on 
those occasions we found conditions very bad; but we visit them, as 
far as that is concerned, ourselves, sometimes every night- 

The Chairman. And the Grand Hotel has had that reputation 
for a long while ? 

Mr. Catts. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. For how long ? 

Mr. Catts. They lost their license at one time on account of selling 
to minors. 

The Chairman. For a year or two? 

Mr. Catts. At least that. 

The Chairman. What is the other place ? 

Mr. Catts. The Philadelphia House. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. MASON L. HOWES. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your full name ? 

Mr. Howes. Mason L. Howes. 

The Chairman. What is your position ? Are you a detective ? 

Mr. Howes. Yes, sir; detailed with Lieut. Catts. 

The Chairman. You are on the Washington police force? 

Mr. Howes. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What do you know about conditions, at the Grand 
Hotel? 

Mr. Howes. The Grand Hotel is one of the worst places in 
Washington. 

The Chairman. How long has it had that character, Mr. Howes, to 
your knowledge ? 

Mr. Howes. For several years. In the year 1912 conditions were 
very bad, and Mr. Simpson, a member of the first precinct, and myself 
went there on one occasion and found a young girl there, 18 years old. 
Mr. Gardiner was charged with selling to minors. His license was 
revoked. He had no license from that time up until just before the 
last inauguration. He had organized a hotel company, and got a 
license at that time. After that for about perhaps eight or nine 
months or a year, he did not conduct this garden and dance hall. For 
the past year or more he has had this summer garden, which is inclosed 
in the wintertime in glass. There is a dance hall there and music, and 
a lot of prostitutes and women of questionable character go there to 
meet men. 

The Chairman. Do they use the rooms there in the hotel for their 
purposes ? 

Mr. Howes. No, sir; I have no knowledge of their ever using any 
rooms there. They usually go elsewhere. 

The Chairman. It is rather a place of meeting, where they make 
their arrangements and go to other places ? 

Mr. Howes. And then go elsewhere; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you testify to that situation before the excise 
board ? 


178 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Howes. No, sir. I was ordered to go there on this date, but it 
happened that I had a summons in the criminal court on the same 
date. 

The Chairman. I believe Lieut. Catts said he testified to it. 

Mr. Howes. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What do you know about the Philadelphia House ? 

Mr. Howes. I never was in the Philadelphia House but once or 
twice. Conditions were very bad on that occasion. 

The Chairman. When was that ? 

Mr. Howes. About the first of the year, some time. 

The Chairman. Who is the proprietor of the Philadelphia House ? 

Mr. Howes. A man by the name of Edelin. 

The Chairman. Is he a colored man or a white man ? 

Mr. Howes. A colored man. 

The Chairman. What did you see there that was bad ? 

Mr. Howes. I saw a lot of colored prostitutes, women of that char¬ 
acter, singing and dancing, and a lot of noise—a very bad place. In 
our work we find that quite a number of these people we have ar¬ 
rested met in those places and went away from there. 

The Chairman. People that yotf have arrested often go to other 
parts of the city ? 

Mr. Howes. They have told us that they came from there. 

The Chairman. From the Philadelphia House ? 

Mr. Howes. Yes, sir. In other instances we have followed them 
away from there. 

The Chairman. What do you know about the Marks place? 

Mr. Howes. That is just about the same class as Gardiner’s; per¬ 
haps a little worse at the present time. 

The Chairman. How long has it borne that character? 

Mr. Howes. Since last October. He opened that place before a 
license was granted. He started this garden, but the conduct of the 
place did not develop so bad until after the license was granted. 

The Chairman/ What takes place there ? 

Mr. Howes. Prostitutes and women of that character go there 
every night and meet men there. 

The Chairman. What other places do you know of that are of a 
questionable character, where there are saloons ? 

Mr. Howes. I can not say that any of them are very bad at the 
present time. We both testified about the Tremont House before 
the excise board. We took five couples out of this hotel on two 
different occasions. 

The Chairman. Did you testify as to that before the excise board ? 

Mr. Howes. We did; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. When did you take these couples out? 

Mr. Howes. On August 27 and September 5. Other than its being 
used for that kind of a place, the bar itself appeared to be conducted 
properly. I also testified against the Park Hotel, at Eleventh and 
New York Avenue. 

The Chairman. What about that ? 

Mr. Howes. It was a place of the character of the Grand Hotel and 
Marks’s, only not quite so bad. 

The Chairman. Who is the proprietor of that place ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 179 

Mr. Howes. At that time Frank Endres was proprietor. I under¬ 
stand since it has been transferred to his brother. 

The Chairman. Where is the Park Hotel? 

Mr. Howes. At Eleventh and New York Avenue. 

The Chairman. Do you know how many rooms it has ? 

Mr. Howes. I think it has about 30. 

The Chairman. You say you testified against that place before 
the excise board? 

Mr. Howes. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What did you testify about it there ? 

Mr. Howes. Just as to the character of the place; about the women 
that frequented the place. It was a place where they had a dance 
hall and music, and a great many immoral women visited the place 
of evenings. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

The Chairman. I would like to ask Gen. Smith one more question. 
Mr. Smith, have any Senators and Representatives interested them¬ 
selves in obtaining licenses for any saloon people here in Washington ? 

Mr. Smith. There have been. 

The Chairman. Who were they ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall them by name. I am not very well 
known to the Members of either House of Congress. 

The Chairman. How do you know they were Senators or Rep¬ 
resentatives ? 

Mr. Smith. It came on paper. 

The Chairman. There were letters from them, were there? 

Mr. Smith. Letters and verbal communications. 

The Chairman. You do not recall the names? 

Mr. Smith. No. 

The Chairman. Are those letters a part of your records in con¬ 
nection with the cases? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you preserved those letters? 

Mr. Smith. I do not think I did. 

The Chairman. Will you see if you have them and let us have 
them ? 

Mr. Smith. I will. I will look in my desk, with pleasure. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN E. CATTS (Resumed). 

The Chairman. Lieut. Catts, do you recall any other place of 
questionable character? 

Mr. Catts. The Park Hotel, on New York Avenue. 

The Chairman. Tell us about that. 

Mr. Catts. That place is now being frequented. While they do 
not have music, as they used to have, it is frequented by about the 
same class of people; not quite as bad as those I mentioned, but 
still there is quite a few of them go there. 

The Chairman. That is, to the Park Hotel? 

Mr. Catts. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long has it been a place of that character? 

Mr. Catts. Several years. 

The Chairman. Did you testify to that fact ? 

84513*—S. Doc. 981, 63-3-13 


180 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Catts. No, sir; I was not subpoenaed in that case. 

The Chairman. Mr. Howes stated that he testified ? 

Mr. Catts. Yes, sir. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN T. COLE. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your residence ? 

Dr. Cole. 820 H Street NE. 

The Chairman. How long have you been a citizen of the District 
of Columbia ? 

Dr. Cole. Since 1892. I was appointed physician to the poor in 
the community in which I live now, and I have served in that capacity 
ever since. 

The Chairman. What is the State of your nativity ? 

Dr. Cole. Virginia. 

The Chairman. Did you come here from Virginia? 

Dr. Cole. From Alexandria. 

The Chairman. Is there a saloon now located near to you ? 

Dr. Cole. Eight next door to me, sir. 

The Chairman. What saloon is that? 

Dr. Cole. It is owned by Timothy Hanlon. 

The Chairman. When was it established there, Doctor? 

Dr. Cole. Just about a year ago to-day, I think. It was opened 
up and a license was granted in November, 1913. 

The Chairman. The license was granted by this present excise 
board? 

Dr. Cole. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And renewed last November? 

Dr. Cole. Yes, sir. It was a case of transfer from what was sup¬ 
posed to be the slums. Wylie Court has been mentioned in the pro¬ 
ceedings here. They came from Wylie Court there into a respectable 
community, a respectable section of the city in the northeast section. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Doctor, and tell us what protest was filed 
against that transfer, and why. 

Dr. Cole. Well, it was in close proximity to $500,000 of property 
interests in the immediate block on either side of the street. Ninety 
per cent of the property owners protested, especially on the square 
in which the saloon was located. Opposite, on the opposite corner, 
there was a Jewish synagogue. I suppose it had about 50 or 60 
members. 

The Chairman. You mean just across the street from the saloon? 

Dr. Cole. Directly opposite. 

The Chairman. About what distance ? 

Dr. Cole. Just the width of the street. I can not tell you the 
exact distance. Anyhow, it is certainly within 300 feet. The syna¬ 
gogue people protested. They even took their charter down of their 
little church, and it was thrown out, just like it was a piece of chaff. 
I was in hopes that Judge Strasburger would have been subpoenaed 
here this morning to bear me out in some of my statements. He is 
the son-in-law of the owner of this house in which this little syna¬ 
gogue was, and they were negotiating for the property in order to 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


181 


build a church, and they learned that the saloon was coming oppo¬ 
site them and that a license had been granted, and that blocked the 
deal. Since then they have bought a building at the corner of Eighth 
and I Streets, two blocks from the location where they were formerly 
located. 

The Chairman. Was that fact laid before the board? 

Dr. Cole. Certainly. They had the charter granted by the Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia. 

The Chairman. They wanted to buy this house exclusively for 
religious purposes ? 

Dr. Cole. That is what they wanted to buy it for, for use exclu¬ 
sively for religious purposes. There was a mission, which I did not at 
the time place very much weight upon, because it grew up there spas¬ 
modically, during the pendency of this man’s application. It con¬ 
tinued up until a few weeks ago, and that was stopped by some 
influence from the liquor people or the police department. You can 
not get any protection out there from the police station in that 
section, I am very sorry to state, particularly as pertaining to saloons. 
They talked up this saloon in the hearing as though it was the buffet 
of the Metropolitan Club or the Waldorf-Astoria. It could not have 
been praised any higher by either the lieutenant or the captain of that 
precinct. 

The Chairman. Is your office in your residence ? 

Dr. Cole. It is. I have been located there for 17 years, right in 
that house. 

The Chairman. And the saloon is next door ? 

Dr. Cole. The saloon is next door. 

The Chairman. How many other residents in that same block are 
there ? 

Dr. Cole. There are three private residences there now, but there 
are stores in the block. Most of those stores are owned by Mrs. 
Hughes, who owns the corner residence, or practically next to the 
corner, and they are tenanted by people and have been for years, on 
both sides of the street. All of those houses are tenanted by people. 

The Chairman. You mean for residence purposes as well as busi¬ 
ness purposes ? 

Dr. Cole. Yes, sir; I have had patients in that block 20 years, right 
along, on both sides of the street. 

The Chairman. As a matter of fact, then, it is as much of a resi¬ 
dence section as it is a business section? 

Dr. Cole. Just as much of a residence block and street as it is a 
business block. 

' The Chairman. Is it more so ? Would you say it was more so ? 

Dr. Cole. No; I suppose on my side of the street there are about 
six or seven stores. On the opposite side there are all stores, but 
they are occupied above by tenants. 

The Chairman. Are all those stores occupied above by tenants ? 

Dr. Cole. Yes, with the exception of one over a hardware store. 
That is the only one in the block not occupied. 

The Chairman. How about the streets on the side of that block ? 

Dr. Cole. Entirely residential, north and south; entirely residen¬ 
tial. The only business houses are on H Street. 

The Chairman. You say 90 per cent of that block protested against 
this saloon ? 


182 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Dr. Cole. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. As well as the people across the street who wanted 
to establish a synagogue? 

Dr. Cole. Yes, sir. You have the records right there, and a copy 
of my papers filed with the excise board. I went over them thor¬ 
oughly with Gen. Smith at the time of the hearing. At his own 
request I sat at the table there, and he asked me to cite those houses. 

The Chairman. And the people on all the other three corners 
opposite the saloon made protests ? 

Dr. Cole. Yes,sir Mackall Bros., the druggist, who has been there 
for years- 

The Chairman. What reply did Gen. Smith make to representa¬ 
tives on that question ? 

Dr. Cole. They did not say anything; they simply reserved their 
decision, and then it came out two or three weeks later. 

The Chairman. How has that saloon affected your business ? 

Dr. Cole. It has affected it quite materially. I have noticed a 
falling off in my lady patients. 

The Chairman. Your lady patients ? 

Dr. Cole. Yes, sir. Of course, there are a number of them that 
would come no matter where I was located; but there are patients 
that it is objectionable to, especially during the summer season. 

The Chairman. How has it affected the peace of your family ? 

Dr. Cole. They are disturbed at night. You can hear the boister¬ 
ous conversation in the saloon right under my bed chamber, and it is 
very obnoxious. 

The Chairman. Have you any further statement? 

Dr. Cole. I would like to go further. 

The Chairman. Go ahead and give us all you know in regard to it. 

Dr. Cole. On the night of the 21st of October I attended a joint 
meeting of the anthropological society and the medical society at 
the Public Library, and I walked down Ninth Street with a friend 
of mine, Dr. Johnston Elliott. I was in hopes to have had him here 
to-day. I met the attorney who represented Mr. Hanlon in his appli¬ 
cation for a license in November, and I stopped him. We recog¬ 
nized each other on the street, and he said, “Well, we are going to 
get that license; you might as well get ready to move out. The 
saloon will move you away anyhow.” I said, “ I will not do it.” He 
says, “Come down to see us on the 1st of November, and we will buy 
your property.” 

The Chairman. Who was that? 

Dr. Cole. That was the attorney, Mr. Keane—Michael J. Keane. 
He says, “We are going to get the license.” This was four or five 
days after the hearing. He said, “You might as well sell your prop¬ 
erty; we are going to get it-—we are going to get a license, and you 
will get tired of making complaints before another year rolls around.” 
I said, “I do not think I will get tired.” 

The Chairman. This Michael J. Keane was one of the lawyers who 
represented Mr. Hanlon ? 

Dr. Cole. One of the lawyers who represented Mr. Hanlon in the 
hearing last November. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Hanlon the owner of the saloon ? 

Dr. Cole. Yes, sir. He said, “It cost us $12,000 for that man to 
get in there.” 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 183 

The Chairman. This lawyer told you it cost $12,000 for Hanlon to 
get in there ? 

Dr. Cole. Yes, sir. I said, “What do you mean by that? It cer¬ 
tainly could not have cost over a thousand dollars. In fact, I have 
had it variously estimated, and it would not amount to $1,500.” He 
said, “I mean, attorneys 7 fees and other things. 77 

The Chairman. Attorneys 7 fees and other things? 

Mr. Smith. Did that amount include the stock, fixtures, good will,, 
and the property—the real estate ? 

Dr. Cole. He said it cost him that much money to get into the 
place. 

Mr. Smith. It would make a difference whether he owned the 
property or not. 

Dr. Cole. No; he rents the property. I am getting a little hit 
ahead of my story. 

The Chairman. Go ahead in your own way. 

Dr. Cole. In April, 1914, after several unsuccessful attempts to 
interview Mr. Sheehy relative to the conditions next door to me—a 
license had been granted since, in fact. This was in April, which is a 
few days before he resigned. I was never able to have an interview 
with Mr. Sheehy. He was always closeted, and I could not see him. 

The Chairman. That is, while he was chairman of the board? 

Dr. Cole. WTiile he was chairman of the board. I could not get 
him at his house or at his private office. Finally, one Friday evening,. 
I did locate him. His phone was not in order. I believe the wire 
had been clipped for a time, for 10 days, at his house. He came to 
the phone and I told him who I was and that I had been trying to 
have an interview with him. He says, “What about? 77 I said, 
“Relative to the conditions next door. 77 He said, “You come down 
to my office to-morrow morning at 10 o’clock and I will give it to you 
right in the teeth. 77 This coming from the chairman of the excise 
board! I said, “What is that you said, sir? 77 He said, “You know 
damn well what I said, 77 and he repeated it. I said, “I am going to 
give you all the troubles I can. I will not come to see you. 77 So I 
immediately came up to the Capitol and saw several gentlemen whom 
I had the honor of being acquainted with and have known for a good 
many years. Among them was Senator Jones, to whom I had been 
introduced by a Representative. I related my story to him. That 
was on a Saturday morning that I interviewed Senator Jones, and the 
following Tuesday Sheehy’s resignation went in. Since then he has 
been appearing before the excise board as an attorney, as we all know. 
I have talked with Gen. Smith and talked with Mr. Baker personally 
and made a personal appeal. I had a friend, a Representative, write 
a letter in my behalf. You have them on file there in my papers. 
It was a very strong appeal. No attention whatever was paid to it. 
It did not get the slightest consideration. 

The Chairman. Doctor, had any saloons been operating in that 
neighborhood before that time ? 

Dr. Cole. There had been a saloon on the corner of Eighth and H. 
This is at Ninth and H. 

The Chairman. But in that block ? 

Dr. Cole. No; that was simply transferred from the slums into a 
respectable community. You have the data right there, just as they 
have it on file at the excise board—everything. 


184 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. You gave me a statement of the annoyances that 
the saloon has caused you ? 

Dr. Cole. Yes. My son wrote that. It is a little superfluous, 
probably, but at the same time it hits the spot. 

The Chairman. I think it would be a good idea to make it a part 
of the record right here. 

(The letter referred to is here printed in full, as follows:) 

Washington, D. C., August 31, 1914. 
Honorable Excise Board op the District of Columbia. 

Gentlemen: I desire to file protest against the renewal of a barroom license in the 
name of Tim Hanlon or other person or persons, at 822 H Street NE., adjoining my 
office and residence. 

It is needless to say that I have been located here for 20 years and the saloon ad¬ 
joining is very objectionable and a nuisance, being frequently awakened between 
12 and 1 o’clock a. m. by the loud and boisterous talking of the patrons in the said 
saloon. I further say that it is decidedly unnecessary in the block, that we have 
quite a number of saloons both east and west of us. Also the houses in this square 
are tenanted by respectable people, the census of which I will be prepared to give 
at the time of the hearing in this case which I hope you will give me ample notice 
that I may present my case stronger, 
ju Very respectfully, 

Jno. T. Cole. 


Protest Against Barroom License. 

Honorable Excise Board of the District of Columbia. 

Gentlemen: We, the undersigned owners of real estate and residents keeping 
house in the neighborhood, respectfully state that the barroom license at No. 822 H 
Street NE. is not necessary and is objectionable; and we petition against the grant¬ 
ing of any license to sell intoxicating liquors at that place for the license year begin¬ 
ning November 1,1914, to Timothy Hanlon or to any other person or persons whatever. 

resident housekeepers. 

Jno. T. Cole, M. D., 820 H Street NE. 

W. E. Bradley, D. D. S., 810 H Street NE. 

Clara I. Hughes, 800, 802, 804, 806, 808 H Street NE. 

J. M. Harr, 901-903-905 H Street and 729 Ninth Street NE. 

Flora A. Loyd, 816 H Street NE. 

Jennie Cathcart Green, 821 H Street NE. and 728 Ninth Street NE. 

Mrs. E. M. Nelson, 802 Ninth Street NE. 

Mackall Bros., 823 H Street NE. 

J. C. Yost, 715 Ninth Street NE. 

C. Parkinson, -808 Ninth Street NE. 

Mrs. B. A. Bowman, 815 H Street NE. 

The above petitioners are strictly property owners in this square. 

1. In sitting in my parlor when the windows are opened, the odors from the saloon 
are enough to make one sick at the stomach, especially those who have not been used 
to these smells. 

2. My son called an officer to make an investigation as to the noisy and boisterous 
talking that was going on in Mr. Hanlon’s saloon, the noise being very much like that 
of two men about to engage in a fight. I claim that my son was insulted by Mr. 
Hanlon, when he told him that he would swear to anything. 

3. About 12 o’clock one night the latter part of last summer, I and part of my family 
were awakened by three or four young colored men who were standing in front of 
my house loudly talking, cursing, and probably gambling. The noise kept up for a 
very long while when at last I had to get out of my bed to request them to leave the 
front of my house. 

4. One of the most annoying things that is going on at present in the saloon, is that of 
thundering noises that jar my house and sound just as if the wall is about to come 
through. We are often awakened by these noises which actually jar our beds, and 
if we be reading or writing we often become startled and frightened. Patients coming 
into my office ask what these noises are and want to know if there is any danger in 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


185 


the wall coming through. These questions are not very pleasant for a physician 
to answer. The only way we can account for these thundering noises is that it must 
be the kegs of beer, etc., that they are putting in or taking away. It happens any¬ 
where from the time the saloon opens to the time it closes at night. 

5. There is a single or party wall that divides my house from the saloon and often 
we can hear the loud talking, etc., through this single wall. 

6. About a week or so ago an officer was called to my house to stop a man from 
unloading his boxes of beer bottles in my tree box, directly in front of my house. 

7. It is a common occurrence that when I drive up to my house in my machine 
that I have to stop a considerable distance down the block in order to get to my office. 
This is caused by the numerous wagons and machines of the patrons, etc., of the said 
saloon. I was never troubled like this before until the barroom was stationed next 
door to me. 

8. The records of the ninth precinct will show that I have made numerous com¬ 
plaints in regard to this saloon. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about Wylie Court? 

Dr. Cole. Yes, sir; I know all about it. That was in my bailiwick 
when I was a physician, 20 years ago. 

The Chairman. What is its character? 

Dr. Cole. It is inhabited by a very low class of colored people. It 
is a court that causes the ninth precinct a good deal of trouble— that 
is, if they want to make it so. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

The Chairman. Gen. Smith, would you tell us what your title as 
“general’’ means ? Is it merely an honorary title or did you serve in 
the war? 

Mr. Smith. I had the honor to organize and to command as colonel 
the Fourth New Jersey Volunteer Infantry, in the war with Spain; I 
served, too, in the Fourth Infantry, National Guard of New Jersey, for 
28 years, 8 of which as its colonel, and on my resignation in 1905 
the Legislature of New Jersey passed a special act brevetting me 
brigadier general. 

The Chairman. Were you a general in the Civil War? 

Mr. Smith. Oh, no, indeed. 

The Chairman. Did you serve in the Civil War? 

Mr. Smith. I did not; I was not in this country. 

(At 1.20 o’clock p. m., the committee took a recess until 3.30 o’clock 
p. m.) 

AFTERNOON session. 


The special committee reassembled, pursuant to the taking of the 
recess, at 3.30 o’clock p. m. 

Present: Senators Sheppard (chairman), Thompson, Jones, and 

Dillingham. , ... 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Mr. Bride, will 

you take the stand ? 

TESTIMONY OF MR. COTTER T. BRIDE. 


(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your full name? 

Mr. Bride. Cotter T. Bride. . . 

The Chairman. What is your address here m the District f 
Mr. Bride. 131 B Street SE. 

The Chairman. That is your residence ? 

Mr. Bride. Yes. . _ . 0 

The Chairman. Have you a business office anywhere ( 

Mr. Bride. No, sir. 

The Chairman. State your official position, Mr. Bride. 


186 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Bride. Commissioner, excise board—one of the commissioners. 

The Chairman. Did you accompany the other commissioners and 
Mr. Shoemaker on a trip at nighttime investigating the saloons in the 
District ? 

Mr. Bride. Yes. 

The Chairman. You called for Mr. Shoemaker in your automobile ? 

Mr. Bride. I did, sir. 

'The Chairman. Did you have any conversation with him regard¬ 
ing the other two commissioners ? 

Mr. Bride. No. 

The Chairman. Did you have any conversation with him regard¬ 
ing collections by anybody ? 

Mr. Bride. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you see the statement, made here in the hear¬ 
ing, that you said to Mr. Shoemaker that W. F. Columbus and young 
Baker were making collections ? 

Mr. Bride. No, sir; that is entirely untrue. 

The Chairman. Did you see that statement ? 

Mr. Bride. I saw the statement. I think that must be a mistake. 

The Chairman. You made no such statement? 

Mr. Bride. Somebody else must probably have told him, to the 
best of my knowledge. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any Senators or Representatives 
who have interested themselves in behalf of any applicants for license 
in the District ? 

Mr. Bride. No; I do not remember. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether any official of the Govern¬ 
ment, outside of Senators and Representatives, has interested him¬ 
self in behalf of applicants for license ? 

Mr. Bride. I can not remember. 

The Chairman. You can not remember? 

Mr. Bride. Yes; I do not remember, sir. Who, outside of the 
Government ? Who do you mean ? 

The Chairman. Outside of Representatives and Senators, any 
official of the Government here in town. 

Mr. Bride. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not remember that they did? 

Mr. Bride. I am positive that they did not. 

The Chairman. You are positive that they did not? 

Mr. Bride. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you positive that no Senator or Representa¬ 
tive did ? 

Mr. Bride. They might have, but I can not remember any of them. 
Not that I know of. I can not remember. 

The Chairman. You do not say positively, however, that they 
have not ? 

Mr. Bride. They may have, but I do not remember. We have so 
much in our heads—so much to do—that I could not remember all 
those things. 

The Chairman. But you do remember that none of the officials of 
the Government, outside of Senators and Representatives- 

Mr. Bride. I know that positively. 

The Chairman (continuing). Have interested themselves? 

Mr. Bride. Yes, sir; I know that. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


187 


The Chairman. Mr. Bride, we have pretty thoroughly gone over 
the different matters in connection with measurements between 
saloons and colleges and universities, with Gen. Smith, the chairman 
of the board. 

Mr. Bride. Yes. 

The Chairman. And the other matters involved in this hearing, 
and I hardly think it necessary to go into the same details with you ? 

Mr. Bride. They are all correct. 

The Chairman. If you have any observations or statements or 
suggestions you would like to make, we would be glad to have them. 

Mr. Bride. We went all over these things, and they are correct. 
We went all over those 300 places. 

The Chairman. You went all over what? 

Mr. Bride. Over those 300 places, and over the 50-room hotels, 
and there is nothing I have to add to what has been said. 

The Chairman. Did you hear his testimony? 

Mr. Bride. He told me, yes, sir, about it. 

The Chairman. Did you know that Mr. Sheehy had charged a $5,000 
contingent fee—he and his partner? 

Mr. Bride. I did not, sir. 

The Chairman. To represent an applicant for a license? 

Mr. Bride. I did not, until I saw it in the paper. 

The Chairman. When did you see it in the paper? 

Mr. Bride. Right after the suit, I think. They brought a suit. 
You were not here then. I did not know a thing about it. 

The Chairman. Do you recall the fact that Mr. Justice Stafford 
said that it was contrary to public policy and good morals for a fee 
of that kind to be charged ? 

Mr. Bride. I saw that. 

The Chairman. Do you agree with him ? 

Mr. Bride. Yes, sir; thoroughly. 

The Chairman. Do you really think that it is necessary for an 
applicant to have a lawyer to enable him to get his case before you? 

Mr. Bride. No, sir; he could get along better without him. 

The Chairman. He could get along better without him ? 

Mr. Bride. Yes; a great deal better. 

The Chairman. It has appeared in evidence here this morning that 
another man paid Mr. Sheehy $1,100 to represent him before you? 

Mr. Bride. I did not know that. 

The Chairman. In addition to the $200 he had paid his regular 
lawyer ? 

Mr. Bride. I never heard it. 

Senator Dillingham. Mr. Commissioner, are a good many recom¬ 
mendations made at the time of these hearings by citizens, outsiders, 
in relation to the granting of licenses? Do you receive letters, 1 
mean? 

Mr. Bride. Opposed to them? 

Senator Dillingham. Either opposed to them or favoring them ? 

Mr. Bride. Very few favoring them, but all opposed to them. 

Senator Dillingham. Are all those letters preserved ? 

Mr. Bride. They are all preserved. 

Senator Dillingham. And they are filed in the office ? 

Mr. Bride. And filed; yes, sir. 


188 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Senator Dillingham. Everything pertaining to a case that is in 
writing, of every kind and character, is preserved ? 

Mr. Bride. Filed and preserved. 

Senator Dillingham. That is all. 

The Chairman. Do you know why, after the board had decided 
to give a license to Bush, on E Street, between Thirteenth and Four¬ 
teenth Streets, it decided to give the license to Engel instead ? 

Mr. Bride. Yes; I remember that very well. 

The Chairman. Why was that change made ? 

Mr. Bride. We looked over the case the second time, like a man 
in court, or like you would look over a case, and decided that Mr. 
Engel was in poor circumstances, while Mr. Bush was not. Mr. Engel 
gave a first-class meal in his place, and Mr. Bush did not. Mr. Bush 
was in another business, and Mr. Engel was not. 

The Chairman. Did you not know all that before you decided to 
grant Bush’s license ? 

Mr. Bride. No, sir; we did not. 

The Chairman. Who gave you that additional information ? 

Mr. Bride. We got some more information. I could not tell you 
where we got it. 

The Chairman. Do you know who gave it to you ? 

Mr. Bride. No; I do not. • We did not think this would be brought 
up again. Then Mr. Bush is just down the street two blocks and a 
half from there, and he was in business. 

The Chairman. Did it meet your approval for Miller to change his 
entrance from the Pennsylvania Avenue side, or E Street, around to 
the Fourteenth Street side ? 

Mr. Bride. Yes, sir; that is right. 

The Chairman. Did that meet your approval ? 

Mr. Bride. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you not think that that was an evasion of 
the law ? 

Mr. Bride. No; not any more than the F Street bar. 

The Chairman. What is that ? 

Mr. Bride. The Ebbitt House bar that fronts on F Street and has 
no entrance on Fourteenth Street. You can not enter from Four¬ 
teenth Street. 

The Chairman. But the bar in the Miller saloon is just where 
it was ? 

Mr. Bride. Except that the bar is fronting on Fourteenth Street. 

The Chairman. The actual room in which the liquors are dis¬ 
pensed is in just the same position ? 

Mr. Bride. Well, you can not call it an E Street bar, Senator. It 
is a Fourteenth Street bar. 

The Chairman. You can not do it technically; but substantially 
there are four saloons there on the same side of the street. 

Mr. Bride. No; there are not. I beg to differ with you. 

Senator Dillingham. I would be glad to have you state how you 
justify the final granting of that license, after declining to grant it in 
the first place. I would be glad to have your explanation of it. 

Mr. Bride. We did not decline it in the first place; there were none 
of them settled. 

Senator Dillingham. It amounted to a denial, did it not ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


189 


Mr. Bride. Oh, no, sir; it did not. 

Senator Dillingham. Was there not an application? 

Mr. Bride. Oh, there was an application, of course, for a bar at 
Fourteenth and E Streets. 

Senator Dillingham. Yes. Was that ever acted upon? 

Mr. Bride. No; never. 

The Chairman. Why not? 

Mr. Bride. Because he never applied for one. 

Senator Dillingham. I thought you said there was an application 
for license ? 

Mr. Bride. Not on E Street. 

The Chairman. You are speaking, Senator, of the Engel place. 
Mr. Bride, Senator Dillingham is speaking of the change from Bush 
to Engel. 

Senator Dillingham. Yes; I had that in mind. 

Mr. Bride. Yes; then you have got it all mixed up. The only 
reason was that Mr. Engel had a better place, a finer saloon, and gave 
a better meal, and we thought that should settle it; and besides, he 
had no other business and Mr. Bush had. Mr. Bush is in the auto¬ 
mobile business, what you call those sight-seeing cars. That is what 
we were told. And somebody made an inkling there that he wanted 
to sell out; and generally when a fellow wants to sell out, we put 
him out. If we found that a saloon keeper wanted to sell out we 
would put him out and let the other fellow in. 

The Chairman. Did you hear the testimony in the hearings with 
regard to the licensing of the bar in the Grand Hotel? 

Mr. Bride. The testimony. There was no bad testimony against 
that place. I wish there was. 

The Chairman. You say there was no bad testimony against it? 

Mr. Bride. No, sir. That was a misfortune. They all come out 
now, all right, but not before. 

Senator Dillingham. Was the testimony all preserved, that was 
taken in that case? 

Mr. Bride. Yes; we have got it. I think we have got it here, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. Was there any bad testimony against the place 
run by Marks—the hotel run by Marks? 

Mr. Bride. Where is Marks? 

The Chairman. 1000 E Street NW. 

Mr. Bride. We did hear but one bad report, and it was not very 
bad. Just one bad report. I do not remember that, now. I do 
not recall. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bride, when the saloon license was granted to 
Mr. Hanlon to transfer from—Wylie Court, was it, Dr. Cole ? 

Dr. Cole. At Third and H Streets, in the vicinity of Wylie Court. 

The Chairman. To what number ? 

Dr. Cole. To 822 Eighth Street. 

Mr. Bride. I was not on the board at that time. 

The Chairman. You were not on the board at that time? 

Mr. Bride. No, sir. 

The Chairman. That was the time that Mr. Sheehy was chairman 
of the board ? 

Dr. Cole. Yes; I would like to say that Mr. Bride was not on the 
board when that case was handled, and I have no criticism to make 
of Mr. Bride except that of favoritism. 


190 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

The Chairman. Was not the license renewed last November? 

Dr. Cole. Yes. 

The Chairman. You were a member of the board when the license 
of Mr. Hanlon was renewed ? 

Mr. Bride. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is it not a fact that 90 per cent of the people in 
that section protested against that bar being put there ? 

Mr. Bride. I can not remember, Senator. I could not remember 
that. You have got about 500; and you can’t remember. I can 
not remember all those things. 

The Chairman. You say you assisted in making these measure¬ 
ments from the saloons- 

Mr. Bride. Every one of them? 

The Chairman. To the churches and schoolhouses. 

Mr. Bride. Every one of them, Senator. 

The Chairman. The committee will be glad to have any statement 
you care to make. 

Mr. Bride. That is about all I know, I think. 

The Chairman. You can stand aside for the present. 

Mr. Bride. All right, sir. 

The Chairman. I forgot to ask you, Mr. Bride, how long you have 
been a citizen of the District ? 

Mr. Bride. I came here in June, 1871. 

The Chairman. From what State did you come here ? 

Mr. Bride. I came directly from Dayton, Ohio. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. HENRY S. BAKER. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your full name ? 

Mr. Baker. Henry S. Baker. 

The Chairman. What is your address here in town ? 

Mr. Baker. 1108 Sixteenth Street. 

The Chairman. How long have you been a citizen of the District ? 

Mr. Baker. A little over 10 years. 

The Chairman. From what State did you come here, Mr. Baker ? 

Mr. Baker. From West Virginia. 

The Chairman. What is your official position ? 

Mr. Baker. I am one of the excise commissioners of the District 
of Columbia. 

The Chairman. I do not know that I have any particular ques¬ 
tions to ask you. We have gone into these matters so thoroughly 
with Gen. Smith, and I am calling you more to give you an oppor¬ 
tunity to say anything that you desire to say regarding the admin¬ 
istration of the affairs of the excise board. The committee would 
be glad to have you make any statement. 

Mr. Baker. In general, I think I can verify everything he said, 
sir. We have given these things thorough study and given it a great 
deal of our time—in fact, all of my time—and went into it very 
thoroughly. 

The Chairman. I want to say to you and the other commissioners 
that we will have these proceedings published, and we already have 
the typewritten copies of them, and we will be glad to give you a 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


191 


copy of them, and hold the matter up until you can have an oppor¬ 
tunity to answer anything that has been said in a critical way in 
any part of the proceedings. We want to give you a fair opportunity 
in this matter and give everybody fair play. I think that will do 

Mr. Baker. Senator Sheppard, I have one further statement I 
would like to make. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Baker. I emphatically deny the assertion that was made here 
yesterday as to my having received anything from anybody, through 
my son or anyone else. I want to have that put in the record. I 
have been accused here of having my son make collections. I em¬ 
phatically deny that as having come from Mr. Bride, and he denied 
having said it. I deny having any knowledge of such a thing. 

The Chairman. The statement was that they were making collec¬ 
tions. He did not ask, I think, what their character was. 

Mr. Baker. “For Mr. Baker,” the paper says. 

The Chairman. I do not recollect exactly what the testimony was, 
but the record will show, and your denial will go in. 

Mr. Baker. I am not quoting from the record, of course; I am 
quoting from the newspaper article. 

The Chairman. What is your opinion of the ethics of a lawyer 
charging $1,000 to $5,000 to present a case to you for the granting of 
a saloon license ? 

Mr. Baker. That is purely a business transaction, and I really 
have not any opinion about that. 

The Chairman. This granting of a license is purely a question of 
fact, is it not? 

Mr. Baker. What is that ? 

The Chairman. It is purely a question of fact? You pass on the 
facts ? 

Mr. Baker. Conditions and facts and everything, sir. 

The Chairman. There are no abstruse legal questions involved; 
no complicated legal problems ? 

Mr. Baker. No; I do not see that there are. 

The Chairman. As a matter of fact, would not everybody get 
equal justice from you and your associates if they did not have a 
lawyer at all? 

Mr. Baker. No doubt of it. 

The Chairman. They would do just as well? 

Mr. Baker. And I have advocated it over and over again. If I 
had a person that spoke to me about it, I would say “You will get 
just as fair treatment without an attorney as with one.” We go into 
each and every case, whether there is a lawyer in the case or not. 
To get personal knowledge we visit these places, and we have been 
controlled very much in our decisions by our own personal observation 
of these places. They did not go on the stand and give it, but we 
got this information by personal observation in our rounds of visits. 

The Chairman. Did you know that Mr. Sheehy and his partner 
had made a contract for a contingent fee of something like $5,000 in 
the case of an application for a license in the Evans Building, at the 
time the hearing was held ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. The only thing I have is through the news¬ 
papers. 

The Chairman. Did you see Mr. Justice Stafford’s decision? 


192 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Baker. We had a letter from Mr. Wilson, stating the facts. 

The Chairman. Did you see Justice Stafford’s decision on the 
matter ? 

Mr. Baker. I read it; yes, sir; in the paper. Now, I did not see 
the decision; I read the newspaper. 

The Chairman. You read where he denounced it as being contrary 
to public policy and good morals ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes; in the newspaper. 

The Chairman. Is it within the power of your excise board to 
refuse to permit an attorney to appear before them ? 

Mr. Baker. I should think so, although we have never exercised 
that. 

The Chairman. Have you made any effort to investigate the char¬ 
acter of the men who appeared before you as attorneys—lawyers ? 

Mr. Baker. No; I can not say that we have. We have never had 
any occasion to. 

The Chairman. Have any attorneys ever consulted you privately 
regarding any cases that they had ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir; I would not have permitted it. 

Senator Thompson. Did you hear the testimony of your associate, 
Mr. Smith, this morning ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. You did not hear it? 

Mr. Baker. I did not hear it. 

Senator Thompson. I presume the board is a unit on the proposi¬ 
tion of these measurements ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Upon the theory that the nearest way across 
is the shortest way around ? 

Mr. Baker. We did not so regard it. 

Senator Thompson. What is that ? 

Mr. Baker. We did not so regard it, Senator. 

Senator Thompson. The law provides that you shall pursue the 
measurements according to the shortest course of travel? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. And did you approve the idea of making the 
square corners ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. A man going to or from a saloon does not gen¬ 
erally turn a square corner, does he ? 

Mr. Baker. Well, maybe not. 

Senator Thompson. As a matter of fact, the shortest course of 
travel would mean what it says in the law, does it not ? 

Mr. Baker. Well, I don’t know but what it would. 

Senator Thompson. That is, if you had a measurement that would 
be 400 feet by a square corner, and a person in taking the usual course 
of travel would naturally go a distance of only 397 feet or 395 feet, 
which measurement would you accept ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not just get that. 

Senator Thompson. I say, if by the square corner measurement that 
was mentioned this morning the distance from a saloon to a church 
or to an educational institution, a public school or a college, was 400 
feet by a square corner and only 395 feet by the usual course of travel, 
which would you accept as the criterion to go by ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


193 


Mr. Baker. We would take the 400, very likely. 

Senator Thompson. You would take the 400? 

Mr. Baker. Yes; observing the traffic regulations and things to 
guide us, if it measured 400 feet, we would be very likely to take 
that. 

Senator Thompson. Then you would permit the place to run if it 
was a question of distance ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes; if all other things were equal, you understand. 

Senator Thompson. In the construction of the law, do you main¬ 
tain the idea that in the city of Washington there must be 300 
saloons ? 

Mr. Baker. I am not prepared to say that. 

Senator Thompson. The law is that there shall not be exceeding 
300 ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. As I understood the chairman, it has been 
construed to mean that there shall be that number ? 

Mr. Baker. I should think, when there is only one number named 
given to you, you are supposed to get as near that number as possible. 

Senator Thompson. Then what is the use of the words “not ex¬ 
ceeding” ? Why not say “there shall be 300 saloons in the city of 
Washington” ? 

Mr. Baker. It meant that you could not go over that number, 
and that is your limit. 

Senator Thompson. Then, in order to get a reduction in the num¬ 
ber of saloons, it will be necessary for Congress to fix a minimum ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not say that. 

Senator Thompson. Or to reduce the number by law ? 

Air. Baker. I do not say that; no, sir. 

Senator Jones. You think you could get a reduction with a new 
board, do you not? 

Mr. Baker. You could get it with this board if circumstances 
required it. 

Senator Jones. I thought you said the law required that you 
should get up as near the limit as possible ? 

Mr. Baker. No; I say if you could get, within the law, so many 
eligible people and all that; but I do not say you are required to keep 
up to that number. 

Senator Thompson. You disagreawith him on that point, then? 

Air. Baker. What; that we are required to keep up to that 
number ? 

Senator Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. Baker. I do not know what he said, but I do not think we are 
required to keep up to that number. 

Senator Thompson. You have that number now? 

Mr. Baker. We have that number now. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, Gen. Smith said that they 
should have 300 provided that 300 complied with all the requirements 
of the board and the law. Is not that right, Gen. Smith ? 

Air. Smith. Correct, sir. 

Senator Thompson. The law also limits the number of saloons on 
a block in the city, does it not? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 


194 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Thompson. Not more than three on a side, I believe, and 
not more than four in the block on both sides of the street between 
intersecting streets. 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. I do not know whether you have been exam¬ 
ined relative to the Miller place, opposite the New Willard Hotel. 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. The opening, the entrance, in that building 
was originally on E Street, was it not ? 

Mr. Baker. It was. 

Senator Thompson. And that made too many saloons, according 
to the law, on that side of the street, as you understood it ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Did you approve of the method of changing 
the entrance there of that saloon in order to comply with the strict 
regulation of the law? Do you think that was proper, to change 
that entrance to the Fourteenth Street side, and then run the busi¬ 
ness the same as it was always before ? 

Mr. Baker. It is on Fourteenth Street. It is licensed for Four¬ 
teenth Street, not on E Street. 

Senator Thompson. Do you think that a subterfuge of that kind 
is all right, a change simply of an entrance to meet a condition in 
the law ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know but what it is. 

Senator Thompson. You think it is? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. The saloon is there just as it was before ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. The question is whether there are three or 
four saloons in that block. There were four according to the ad¬ 
mitted facts, as admitted by everybody, before the entrance was 
changed. That is right, is it not ? 

Mr. Baker. There were; yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. That saloon is there yet, and they simply 
changed the entrance. Are there not four saloons in that"block at 
the present time, on that side of the block ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. You think not? 

Mr. Baker. No. 

Senator Thompson. Are you familiar with the Mergner place, on 
East Capitol Street ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Did you observe that ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Did you observe it before they constructed 
that fence there ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall that I did. 

Senator Thompson. Do you know as a matter of fact that without 
that fence there that place was within 400 feet of a public school 
of the city? 

Mr. Baker. I do not really know. I did not measure that. We 
measured as we found conditions, with that fence there. 

Senator Thompson. What is that? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


195 


Mr. Baker. We measured as we found conditions, with the fence 
there. I do not know how much it would be if you should take the 
fence away. 

Senator Thompson. You do not know that the fence was down 
before this law went into effect ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not. 

Senator Thompson. Was not that fact shown to you on the hear¬ 
ings ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall it. 

Senator Thompson. And that the fence was built there in order to 
fence out the law ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recollect that fact. 

Senator Thompson. You think that would be all right, if that was 
a fact, to measure around that fence after it was put there after the 
passage of this law, and that it would not be an evasion of the law 
now to permit the place to run ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know about that. 

Senator Thompson. You think not. Do you know where the Graff 
place is, 223 Seventh Street NW. ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Do you know about the measurements there, 
and who put the little grass plot there, and something in it to measure 
around ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not. 

Senator Thompson. You do not know anything about that? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall it, sir. 

Senator Thompson. As a matter of fact, if it was discovered on the 
hearing that these things were done for the purpose of evading the 
law, you, as a member of the excise board, would not permit a saloon 
to run there, would you ? 

Mr. Baker. No; I do not know as we would. 

Senator Thompson. Were not those facts shown on the hearing? 

Mr. Baker. I do not just recall it. 

Senator Thompson. Will you have the hearings brought here or 
sent here in that case ? 

Mr. Baker. The hearing is there, I think. 

Senator -Thompson. I do not think there was any call for them 
in the Graff case. 

Mr. Smith. We will have them brought. 

The Chairman. Will you bring the papers in the Graff case and 
in the Mergner case ? 

Mr. Smith. With pleasure. 

Mr. Baker. It is here. 

Senator Thompson. I take it that the board would not want to 
maintain any open subterfuge of that kind to prevent the law 
operating ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. And if it was shown there, the license would 
be wrongfully issued ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. And the place ought to stop, is not that 
right ? 

Mr. Baker. I am not prepared to answer that. 

84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3- 14 


196 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Thompson. But you do approve of that change that was 
made at Fourteenth and E Streets ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Was your attention catied to the two saloons 
in the neighborhood of the place where the Salvation Army holds 
its religious meetings ? 

Mr. Baker. I have no doubt that was so; that our attention was 
called to it. 

Senator Thompson. There was a protest by the Salvation Army 
and by other people against those saloons there ? 

Mr. Baker. As a house of religious worship. That was the pro¬ 
test. That is the law on this subject. 

Senator Thompson. It is a house of religious worship, so far as 
the Salvation Army is concerned? That is where they worship, is 
it not ? 

Mr. Baker. Well, that is- 

Senator Thompson. You do not maintain that there is any dis¬ 
cretion placed by Congress in the law for the excise board to deter¬ 
mine what was a proper religious organization ? 

Mr. Baker. No; not because it was- 

Senator Thompson (continuing). Whether it was the Salvation 
Army or Unitarian or Presbyterian or Methodist, it was not for you 
to say whether or not that was a proper religious order ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. If the Methodists were holding their regular 
meetings there, would you have any other construction as to whether 
it was an evasion of the law to locate two saloons in the neighbor¬ 
hood of a place of worship ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know in that sense. The law formerly, 
Senator, had “a place of religious worship,” which was struck out 
of the law—that would be one on a street corner—and it was made 
to read “a house of religious worship” instead. 

Senator Thompson. That would include the saloons down by the 
Franklin Statue, at Tenth and D Streets, where many people hold 
meetings ? 

Mr. Baker. That would be a place of public worship, yes. 

Senator Thompson. But I understand the Salvation Army have a 
house of public worship within a few yards of two saloons located 
by the excise board, and that they protested and other citizens did 
likewise. Is that true or not? They have a house there; not a 
place in the street. 

Mr. Baker. Used exclusively for religious purposes ? 

Senator Thompson. Was the matter decided on that point ? 

Mr. Baker. No; but a church, a house of religious worship, is not 
a place where merchandising is carried on. 

Senator Thompson. The distinction was made, then, because there 
was some business transacted there ? 

Mr. Baker. That is the way we regarded it. 

Senator Thompson. How about these Catholic fairs which are 
held in the Catholic church? 

Mr. Baker. It is a Catholic church, all right, dedicated for that 
purpose. 

Senator Thompson. It is their piace of worship, is it not? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


197 


Senator Thompson. Do you mean because some one else has some 
other business or does something else at this place, or about it, that 
it changes its religious character—that is, the character of the house 
itself—to that of a public place of business ? Is that it ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know as- 

Senator Thompson. In other words, because there is a bicycle 
business underneath this house of worship of the Salvation Army, 
you think that changes the character of the house from that of a 
house of worship, so that you can put a saloon where you please 
along there? 

Mr. Baker. I would think so, sir. 

The Chairman. As a matter of fact, what other business is being 
conducted in the building in which the Salvation Army holds its 
worship ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not just recall, but I was under that impression. 
I may be mistaken about that. I was thinking about the Central 
Union Mission, possibly. It has a lodging house and a lunch room. 
It may be I have gotten the Central Union Mission mixed with the 
Gospel Mission. 

The Chairman. Then you do not recollect whether this house 
where the Salvation Army meets is used for any business purpose or 
not? 

Mr. Baker. No; I do not recall. I was confused between the 
Central Union Mission and the Salvation Army. I am not aware of 
the Salvation Army, about whether there is business under it or not. 

The Chairman. If the building occupied by the Salvation Army 
was used by it exclusively for religious worship, would you then hold 
that a saloon could not be located within 400 feet of it ? 

Mr. Baker. I should think not; that is, if it is conducted wholly 
for religious services as a church, it should be so regarded by the 
excise board. 

Senator Jones. Who put the word “exclusively" in this law? 

Mr. Baker. No one. 

Senator Jones. You apply that and make that a part of the law, 
do you not ? 

Mr. BxiKER. A house of religious worship I was taking to be con¬ 
ducted for that purpose. I may be in error in that, you know. 

Senator Jones. Have you not got that into your regulations, that 
it must be a place used exclusively for religious worship? Is not 
that in your regulations ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not so recall it. 

Senator Jones. I understood that that was a part of your regu¬ 
lations. 

The Chairman. They have announced that they follow that rule 
whether they put it in their rules and regulations or not. 

Senator Jones. I thought they put it in their rules. That is not 
put in the rules ? 

Mr. Baker. I think not. 

Senator Jones. But you follow that, as a rule ? 

Mr. Baker. As a rule, in helping us to decide. 

Senator Jones. Why do you do that ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know, any more than to get at a- 

The Chairman. You found out that was the only way to permit 
the location of saloons at certain places, did you not ? 




198 


EXCISE BOARD OP THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Baker. No; I can not say that. 

Senator Jones. If you had followed another rule you would have 
excluded them, would you not, in a great many instances? 

Mr. Baker. Possibly; possibly so. 

Senator Jones. And by putting that in you do not exclude them t 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. So that was the purpose in putting that in? 

Mr. Baker. No, I do not think so. We had to reach some con¬ 
clusion how to treat the things. 

Senator Jones. You have not shut anyone out within 400 feet of 
a place of worship where you could put them in under that rule, 
have you ? 

Mr. Baker. I can not just answer. 

Senator Jones. You do not recall any, do you? Mr. Baker, who 
made these rules and regulations? 

Mr. Baker. The board. 

Senator Jones. Who prepared them? 

Mr. Baker. Each one. Every one had a hand in it. 

Senator Jones. Did any one of the board make a draft and then 
submit it to the board? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. You got together and talked each one over 
generally? 

Mr. Baker. We got right together. 

Senator Jones. And then decided on it ? 

Mr. Baker. We worked in the office all together up until 10 or 11 
o’clock at night. 

Senator Jones. Mr. Sheehy did not prepare a draft of these rules 
and regulations and then submit them to the board for discussion 
and consideration and adoption ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. You know about the Central Union Mission, 
on Louisiana Avenue, do you not ? 

Mr. Baker. Only by observation, passing by. 

Senator Thompson. You know that they have owned a large 
property there for years, and religious services are carried on there 
every day, do you not ? 

Mr. Baker. I have been told so. 

Senator Thompson. Yes; and yet there are several saloons 
located within 400 feet of that place, are there not? 

Mr. Baker. I just can not recall. 

Senator Thompson. Three or four ? 

Mr. Baker. I say that I can not just recall. 

Senator Thompson. What is the position of the board on that? 

Mr. Baker. We do not regard it as a house of religious worship. 

Senator Thompson. Do you not regard a place used as a house of 
religious worship, where religious worship is carried on every day of 
the week and every evening and on Sunday, as better established 
than a cathedral that only holds church on Sunday. Would you not 
think that was more identified as a place of public worship, worship 
being held there every day ? 

Mr. Baker. I would not be prepared to answer that. 

Senator Thompson. You would not? Do you not know, as a mat¬ 
ter of fact, that it is to prevent the interference with schools and 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 199 

colleges and churches which, under our policy of law, are to exist free 
and undisturbed by nuisances, that this law was enacted, and that 
it was to protect them, and that the saloons were to be thrown out 
wherever they interfered, and the law not resolved in their favor in 
order to permit them to run? Do you not think that is the correct 
construction of this law in the interests of society ? 

Mr. Baker. Well, I can not just say about that. 

Senator Thompson. Well, you do know that its object is to protect 
f hose institutions, do you not? 

Mr. Baker. I suppose so. 

Senator Thompson. That would be the object? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. But you have in various instances here dis¬ 
criminated against schools and discriminated against various religious 
societies on some technical construction of the law? Has not your 
attention ever been called to that before ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not just recall. 

Senator Thompson. Were not these matters all thrashed out, or at 
least presented in the form of protests, and in numerous cases by 
witnesses and petitions, against the issuance of licenses at these very 
places before the licenses were issued ? 

Mr. Baker. There were public hearings held in all cases, and we 
have had the pros and cons for the places. 

Senator Thompson. All these matters were brought out then, were 
they not ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. And yet the licenses were issued ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Mr. Baker, the law here says that no license shall 
be issued to a hotel having less than 50 bedrooms for guests ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

The Chairman. In your rules you have added, after the word 
“hotel,” the words “as such*” 

Mr. Baker. Fifty rooms. 

The Chairman. Yes; that no license shall be issued to a hotel “as 
such” having less than 50 rooms. You have altered it to read that 
way, have you not ? 

Mr. Baker. That is, as a hotel. It would have to have 50 rooms 
and over to be classed as a hotel under the excise laws. 

The Chairman. Yes; but this law says, “Hereafter no license shall 
be issued to a hotel having less than 50 bedrooms for guests.” Under 
this law a hotel may have less than 50 bedrooms. 

Mr. Baker. Not as a hotel. 

The Chairman. But it may not be licensed ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is true ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Why did you add the words “as such” in your 
rules after the word “hotel”? You said, “Hereafter no license 
shall be issued to a hotel as such having less than 50 bedrooms for 
guests.” 

Mr. Baker. I do not just recall why that was made. 

The Chairman. Did you not do it to enable you to give a license 
to a hotel having less than 50 bedrooms ? 


200 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Baker. No, sir; not as a hotel—a restaurant license. 

The Chairman. I understand; but you give them restaurant 
licenses ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Why did you think it necessary to put the words 
“as such” after the word “hotel” if you could give them restaurant 
licenses anyway? You could give a hotel with 100 rooms a restau¬ 
rant license. Now, why did you put those words in there? 

Mr. Baker. If they desired that instead of a hotel license, we could. 

The Chairman. Yes; certainly. Why did you add the words “as 
such” after the word “hotel”? 

Mr. Baker. I could not just tell you why we added that. 

Senator Jones. You put that in so that you could issue them a 
restaurant license, did you not ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. Instead of a hotel license? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. That is the effect of it, is it not ? 

Mr. Baker. It may be the effect of it, but it was not put in there 
for that purpose. 

Senator Jones. That is what you have done. Where you have 
had a hotel with less than 50 rooms that you wanted to issue a bar¬ 
room license to, you have issued a restaurant license ? 

Mr. Baker. We have issued them a barroom license with restau¬ 
rant privilege. 

Senator Jones. That amounts to the same thing, does it not? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. In that way you have evaded that law, have you 
not, which says that no hotel shall have a license where it has less than 
50 rooms? Do you not understand that law to mean that you are 
prohibited from granting a license to a hotel, whether as a restaurant 
or any other way, which has less than 50 rooms for guests ? 

Mr. Baker. As a hotel ? 

Senator Jones. No; I do not say as a hotel. Does not that law 
say that you shall not grant them a barroom license if they have less 
than 50 rooms? 

Mr. Baker. I do not so regard it. 

Senator Jones. Do you not think that that was the intention of 
the lawmakers ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not think so. 

Senator Jones. You do not think so. What did you think the 
intention was, then ? 

Mr. Baker. Well, I thought that they wanted that a hotel with 
50 rooms would be granted a hotel barroom license. 

Senator Jones. What is the difference between a hotel barroom 
license and a restaurant barroom license? They are both barroom 
licenses, are they not ? 

Mr. Baker. They are; yes. 

Senator Jones. The price is the same, the license fee is the same, 
the same proceeding has to be taken to get them ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. What did you understand the law to mean, then, 
when it says that no hotel with less than 50 rooms shall have a license ? 


EXCISE BOARD OP THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 201 

Mr. Baker. That they could not serve liquors in the rooms of a 
hotel with under the number of 50 bedrooms. 

Senator Jones. The law does not say that. The law does not say 
that they shall not serve liquor in a hotel where there are less than 
50 rooms. The law says you shall not grant a license where there 
are less than 50 rooms. Not that they shall not sell in the rooms, 
but that they shall not have any license at all. What does that 
mean ? 

Mr. Baker. We thought that it would be construed that the hotel 
carried a little bit more privileges in dispensing liquors than a simple 
barroom. 

Senator Jones. Did you call on the corporation counsel for an 
opinion as to what that meant ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall now that we did. 

Senator Jones. Were you asked by anybody to do it? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall now that we were. 

Senator Jones. You. do not recall that you were not, do you ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. You might have been? 

Mr. Baker. Might have been. 

Senator Jones. If you were, why did you not call on him for an 
opinion ? 

Mr. Baker. Well, I do not know whether we were called on. I do 
not recall being called on. 

Senator Jones. You do not know of any reason why you should not 
call on him if you were asked to do it ? 

Mr. Baker. No. If we were anyways confused about anything, 
we would sure take it to him. 

Senator Jones. You were perfectly clear about that? 

Mr. Baker. At that time we thought we were perfectly clear. 

Senator Jones. You think so now? 

Mr. Baker. Yes; I think so now. 

Senator Jones. You think that under that provision you have a 
perfect right to issue a restaurant license to a hotel that has less than 
50 rooms, so long as you call it a restaurant license ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes; I think so. 

Senator Jones. Suppose they apply for a hotel license ? 

Mr. Baker. They would not have hotel licenses under us. 

Senator Jones. Yes; I understand. I know that. 

Mr. Baker. I could not tell about that. 

Senator Jones. You did not examine any of the records of hotel 
licenses to see whether or not these places were being run actually as 
hotels ? You made no investigation of that, did you ? 

Mr. Baker. We did not. 

Senator Jones. Now, I want to ask you about those five saloons 
fronting on E Street before this license year began. There were five 
saloons there, were there not ? 

Mr. Baker. There were. 

Senator Jones. I understand from Gen. Smith that on October 30 
the board had decided to grant a license to Mr. Bush, and had refused 
a license to Mr. Engel; is that correct ? 

Mr. Baker. Well, we had it under consideration. We had passed 
that far, and took Mr. Bush. 


202 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Jones. Yes. Do not go quite so fast. You had passed 
Mr. Bush and decided you would give him a license ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. You had also passed Mr. Engel and decided that 
you would not give him a license ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall whether we had passed Engel. We had 
passed Bush. 

Senator Jones. Do you not recall that you had finally decided not to 
give Mr. Engel a license ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. You had decided to give Gerstenberg a license ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. And you had decided to give Shoomaker a license ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. And you had decided to give Bush a license ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. That necessarily cut Engel out, did it not, because 
there could not be but three licenses granted ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Do you not remember directing the assessor to pre¬ 
pare licenses for those three ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall. 

Senator Jones. You do not recall whether you had directed the 
clerk to do that or not ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. Do you not recall deciding not to give Mr. Bush a 
license and to give one to Engel? 

Mr. Baker. I do. 

Senator Jones. When did that change occur? When was that 
change made ? 

Mr. Baker. That evening. 

Senator Jones. On the evening of the 30th or on the morning of 
the 31st? 

Mr. Baker. On the evening of the 30th, if I recall it right. 

Senator Jones. How did you come to make that change? 

Mr. Baker. We went over them before we made a final decision 
and went into it more thoroughly, and we wanted to make a final 
wind-up, and on going into it more thoroughly and taking those two 
into consideration that Engel having a restaurant attachment, and 
the other being simply a barroom, and the other man having some 
other means of support, and other evidence—his not giving all of his 
attention to the saloon business—we concluded to change. 

Senator Jones. Those things had all been shown to you before you 
passed on them, had they ? 

Mr. Baker. We had not gone into them very thoroughly as we did 
finally. We made those changes. 

Senator Jones. You had actually ordered—you had actually de¬ 
cided to grant a license to Mr. Bush, had you not ? 

Mr. Baker. We had passed Mr. Bush as having granted his license. 

Senator Jones. Supposing that your records show that the clerk 
had been directed to advise the assessor to prepare those licenses, 
would not that show that you had acted finally on the matter? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 203 

Senator Jones. It would not? Do you think the clerk would have 
notified the assessor beforehand, before you had directed him to ? 

Mr. Baker. It might be that he did. 

Senator Jones. Do you not know, as a matter of fact, that the 
board had directed the clerk to advise the assessor to prepare the 
licenses of Bush, Gerstenberg, and Shoomaker, and that after that 
had been done you reconsidered and canceled Mr. Bush’s license and 
gave it to Mr. Engel ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Do you not know that fact? 

Mr. Baker. That is a fact; yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. What I want to get at is, between the time you 
advised your clerk to notify the assessor and the time that you finally 
made the change, what information did you get that was new that 
led you to make that change ? 

Mr. Baker. No information. 

Senator Jones. None at all. 

Mr. Baker. We went into it more thoroughly before finally 
deciding. 

Senator Jones. W#s it not brought out that some request had 
come from some other source asking that the change be made ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. Nobody mentioned that or had called up over the 
phone ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. The clerk did not say that he had been called up 
by anybody, advising? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. You are sure of that? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. So that the only thing that led you to make the 
change was that when you talked over what you had already con¬ 
sidered, you decided to give it to Mr. Engel and cancel Mr. Bush ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Did you consider Engel’s financial difficulties? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know but what it was mentioned in the dis¬ 
cussion. 

Senator Jones. Who mentioned it? 

Mr. Baker. I can not recall. 

Senator Jones. Who brought up the first suggestion to make the 
change ? 

Mr. Baker. I could not recall. 

Senator Jones. You do not remember that? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. Do you remember whether you did or not? 

Mr. Baker. I would not like to say that I did or I would not like 
to say that I did not. I may have done so. 

Senator Jones. Did any Members of the House or Members of the 
Senate interest themselves in behalf of Mr. Engel ? 

Mr. Baker. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Jones. Did any representatives of any political organiza¬ 
tion interest themselves in behalf of Mr. Engel or against Mr. Bush 
or in behalf of Mr. Bush ? 

Mr. Baker. Not to my knowledge. 


204 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Jones. Do you know whether any brewing interests in¬ 
terested themselves in behalf of Mr. Engel? 

Mr. Baker. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Jones. Or Mr. Bush? 

Mr. Baker. No. 

Senator Jones. Did you know that Mr. Engel represented here 
some brewing interests of Milwaukee ? 

Mr. Baker. I did not. 

Senator Jones. You did not know anything about that? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir; I may have heard it, but I do not recall it. 

Senator Jones. Did your clerk discuss any people who had in¬ 
terested themselves with reference to these licenses ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir; not to me. 

Senator Jones. He did not call the board’s attention to anybody 
who was interested in that ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones (to Senator Sheppard). If I ask about anything you 
have already gone over, let me know, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Baker, do you know anything of Congressmen or Senators 
interesting themselves for or against anybody applying for license? 

Mr. Baker. I do not. 

Senator Jones. No letters were ever called to your attention from 
any Congressmen ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. None have been placed on file? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. None have spoken to you personally? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. You have heard none of the members of the board 
mention any Congressman or Senator who was interested in the 
granting of any license ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir; I do not recall that any of them at all, sir, 
ever mentioned anything of the kind. 

Senator Jones. So that if any reference has been made to any 
letters from Congressmen, that have been destroyed, you knew noth¬ 
ing about them ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. They were not sent to your office ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. And were not placed among the files of the com¬ 
mission ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. Are you acquainted with the Thyson Hotel? I 
think it is up on Seventh Street. 

Mr. Baker. Nothing more than officially, sir; I have been there 
several times. 

Senator Jones. That is close to a schoolhouse, is it not? 

Mr. Baker. Yes; I believe it is. 

Senator Jones. That has a barroom license as a hotel, has it not? 

Mr. Baker. It has. 

Senator Jones. Do you know what the situation there was before 
this license year began, as to the number of rooms in that hotel ? 

Mr. Baker. I remember having gone through the hotel and counted 
the rooms. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 205 

Senator Jones. Was that before, or while the application was 
pending ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. How many rooms did you find? 

Mr. Baker. Over 50. When we counted 50, then we stopped. 

Senator Jones. Then you stopped ? 

Mr. Baker. There may have been one or two over. 

Senator Jones. There is a new part to that hotel, is there not? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Showing that it has been recently constructed ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Do you know whether or not that addition was 
constructed there after this law was passed ? 

Mr. Baker. I could not say. 

Senator Jones. Was not that brought out in a hearing ? 

Mr. Baker. It may have been. 

Senator Jones. Do you not know, as a matter of fact, that that 
addition was put on to that hotel after this law was passed, for the 
very purpose of bringing it within the permission of the law ? 

Mr. Baker. It may have been. 

Senator Jones. And if it had less than 50 rooms, then of course it 
would be shut out ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Unless you gave it a restaurant license, which you 
would probably have done, would you not ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. Why not ? 

Mr. Baker. Because it would not be a hotel; it would have to be a 
hotel before it got that close to a schoolhouse. 

Senator Jones. What is that ? 

Mr. Baker. A hotel would be the only thing—a hotel or club. 

Senator Jones. You know that that was the only reason that that 
addition was put on there, so as to permit it to be that close to a 
schoolhouse ? 

Mr. Baker. I know that it was done, but I did not know that it 
was done for that reason. 

Senator Jones. Do you think that saloon is a desirable thing 
there, close to that schoolhouse, whether that hotel has 50 rooms or 
a thousand rooms ? 

Mr. Baker. Well, I would not like to say. 

Senator Jones. It would be just as undesirable with 50 rooms as 
it would be with 45 rooms, would it not ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know but what it would. 

Senator Jones. The intention of the law was to keep these saloons 
away from the schoolhouses, was it not ? 

Mr. Baker. It seems to have been. 

Senator Jones. You know that you had discretion, even if they 
had 50 rooms in that hotel, to refuse that license, do you not ? 

Mr. Baker. Well, we would have to have reasons. 

Senator Jones. Does not the law give you full discretion with 
reference to the granting of any license under it ? 

Mr. Baker. It does if it is a disorderly house; or if we find that 
the proprietor is a disorderly or an undesirable person, we may 
refuse his license. 


206 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Jones. Can you point to any section in the law that re¬ 
quires you to grant a license ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. There is not any, is there ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. And do you not know that that law was drawn 
that way in the hope that an excise board would take care of places 
like that and keep these places away from these schoolhouses, at any 
rate, and churches ? Do you not think that is the reason the law 
was written that way ? 

Mr. Baker. I did not think so; no, sir. 

Senator Jones. You do not think so ? 

Mr. Baker. I mean I did not think of it at that time. 

Senator Jones. Well, before you had acted on these licenses you 
had not given this law very much consideration, had you ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. As to what its intent was ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And as to the purpose that was sought to be 
attained by it ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. You had given it a good deal of study? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, I had. 

Senator Jones. Had you come to a conclusion that it was desirable 
to have a hotel of 50 rooms with a barroom license within 400 feet 
of a public school ? 

Mr. Baker. Well, I don't know as I did. 

Senator Jones. At any rate, the fact that there was a new addi¬ 
tion put on to that place there, that brought it up to the 50 rooms, 
and made it possible for you to grant the license, did not prevent 
you from taking that into consideration and refusing the license ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. When you found that it had 50 rooms, it did not 
make any difference to you whether it was 400 feet or 200 feet from 
a schoolhouse, and you granted the license; is not that a fact? 

Mr. Baker. It seems to be a fact in that case. 

Senator Jones. And if that building had been within 100 feet of a 
schoolhouse, you would have granted the license just the same, 
would you not ? 

Mr. Baker. I suppose- 

Senator Jones. If it had 50 rooms ? 

Mr. Baker. I suppose so. 

Senator Jones. In other words, you do not take into account the 
apparent desire of the law to keep these saloons away from the 
schoolhouses if it is possible to grant them a license under the terms 
of the law, do you ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know about that. 

Senator Jones. The board has granted a saloon license everywhere 
it could, has it not ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. Where did you ever refuse one that you could 
have granted ? 

Mr. Baker. I just do not recall now; but I do not think we granted 
all that the place would admit of. That is what you had reference to ? 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


207 


Senator Jones. What do you say ? 

Senator Thompson. You mean up to the number of 300 ? 

Senator Jones. Yes. 

Mr. Baker. Oh, yes; I guess we have. 

The Chairman. Did you hear the evidence that was adduced be¬ 
fore you as to the character of the conduct of the bar and the char¬ 
acter of the manager of the Hotel Grand ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you not think it shows the management to 
have been disreputable and undesirable, and shows the manager to be 
a man of improper character? Do you not think it was sufficient to 
justify you in not licensing him again ? 

Mr. Baker. I would not so regard it. I would not think so. 

The Chairman. Was it not shown before you that that had been 
a place where men and women met to make assignations for immoral 
purposes ? 

Mr. Baker. It was not. 

The Chairman. That was not shown ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did not Lieut. Catts testify in that case that he 
had examined it and that he found it to be a disreputable place? 

Mr. Baker. I do not so recall it, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you recall any testimony about Marks’s place, 
as to the disreputable character of that place? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir; I do not. 

The Chairman. Do you recall anything about the Tremont House, 
as to the disreputable character of that place, from which five men 
and women were taken out, having been found in a disgraceful situa¬ 
tion together? 

Mr. Baker. I recall that. 

The Chairman. You do recall that? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Why did you vote to give that man a license ? 
Did not that show a disreputable character ? 

Mr. Baker. That was not a violation of the liquor law. 

The Chairman. I understand; but this law says that you can take 
into consideration the character of the manager. Has not that been 
called to your attention before ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir—oh, yes; I recognize that. 

The Chairman. You remember Lieut. Sprinkle’s report on the 
Grand Hotel? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did not that report show it to be a disreputable 
place ? 

Mr. Baker. I recall his testimony, but it always contradicted 
everything he said. 

The Chairman (reading): 

Hereafter no license shall be issued to a hotel having less than 50 bedrooms for 
guests, nor to any hotel the character of which, or the character of the proprietor or 
manager of which, is shown to be objectionable to said board. 

Did not the testimony that you heard in the Tremont Hotel case 
show the manager to have an undesirable character? Would that 
character be objectionable to you? 


208 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall that it was put in that form. 

The Chairman. You mean that you do not recall that the law is 
in that form ? 

Mr. Baker. No; the testimony. 

The Chairman. You said you recalled the testimony that five men 
and women were taken out of there, having been found in disgraceful 
situations. Does not that show that the place was disreputable and 
that the man’s character was improper ? 

(The witness did not answer.) 

The Chairman. Would you not say so? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know; I guess I would. 

Senator Jones. Do you think that is a proper way to carry on a 
place of that kind ? 

Mr. Baker. No; I did not say that; no, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Did you visit the Philadelphia House? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. You did not? 

Mr. Baker. I went there officially; not with the gentlemen that 
made that night visit. 

Senator Thompson. Oh, you were not there at that time ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you not hear the testimony of Lieut. Catts 
and Mr. Howes regarding the Philadelphia House ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall it now. 

The Chairman. Do you not recall it? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall it exact. I recall their appearing there, 
but I do not recall their testimony. 

The Chairman. Do you not recall that it was a place that was 
notorious as a resort for colored prostitutes, and that they had 
arrested many men and women in other parts of the city for immoral 
practices who told them that they had come directly from the 
Philadelphia House ? Do you not recall that ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall it. 

Senator Jones. As I understand, under your rules you permit the 
saloons to open their doors a quarter of an hour Before 7 in the 
morning, and also to have them open two hours on Sunday ? 

Mr. Baker. We do not permit them to open their doors. We per¬ 
mit them to go in and arrange things 15 mmutes before. 

Senator Jones. But you do not permit the doors to be opened? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. You do permit them to be in the saloon two hours 
on Sunday, but not have the doors open? 

Mr. Baker. For cleaning purposes and sanitary conditions only. 

Senator Jones. How can they clean out their building thoroughly 
without opening the doors? 

Mr. Baker. They are not allowed to open the doors. 

Senator Jones. Under what provision of the law do you permit 
them to go in their building on Sunday ? 

Mr. Baker. Only for that purpose. 

Senator Jones. Under what provision of the law do you permit 
them to go in there for any purpose on Sunday ? 

Mr. Baker. It is not to dispense or to use in any shape or form. 
They are instructed in that particular. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 209 

Senator Jones. Is there anything in the law that authorizes you 
to make any regulation about that ? 

Mr. Baker. There is nothing against it that I can find. 

Senator Jones. Is there anything in the law that requires you to 
give them permission to go into the place on Sunday ? 

Mr. Baker. No. 

Senator Jones. They can go in there and he in there all day if they 
keep it closed and do not dispense anything, can they not ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. Why not? 

Mr. Baker. Because the hours they are to be in there are stated. 
Policemen are notified of the hours. 

Senator Jones. But the law does not say that they can not be in 
their places, does it ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know as it does. 

Senator Jones. Then you can not prevent them from being in 
there, can you? 

Mr. Baker. Nothing more than that. 

Senator Jones. I would like to know why you issued those rules. 

Mr. Baker. They were for sanitary purposes, more particularly. 

Senator Jones. Why could they not clean up after 7 o'clock and 
get ready to start for the rest of the day ? 

Mr. Baker. I suppose they could. 

Senator Jones. They would have plenty of time to get about every¬ 
thing coming along during that time, would they not ? 

Mr. Baker. I think so. 

Senator Jones. What led you to grant that rule, then, to let them 
go in there before 7 o’clock? 

Mi*. Baker. I do not just recall what led us to do that. 

Senator Jones. Who asked you to do that? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall that. 

Senator Jones. You do not remember anything about it? 

Mr. Baker. No. 

The Chairman. What efforts have you made, if any, Mr. Baker, 
to find whether the saloon keepers were really not doing any business 
luring these two hours that you allowed them to enter their places 
on Sunday? Have you made any personal inspections of any of 
these places on Sunday ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not go out on personal inspections, but when I am 
out on Sundays I pay attention to it myself. 

The Chairman. How many have you really inspected along that 
line? 

Mr. Baker. I really do not know; I could not say. Only those 
which would come in my way during my walks. 

The Chairman. As many as 50 ? 

Mr. Baker. I would not say as many as 50. 

The Chairman. Have you gone into any of them on Sunday ? 

Mr. Baker. Have I ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Then you could not say that you have made an 
inspection, could you ? 

Mr. Baker. I mean the screens are supposed to be open and you 
can see in. That is what I had reference to—see from the outside; a 
view from the outside only. 


210 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. You have an inspector, have you not? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Waldo Hibbs? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Whom you keep in your office as a stenographer ? 

Mr. Baker. At times; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He testified that he had done nothing but steno¬ 
graphic work since November 1, and that you had not directed him 
to make any investigation in that time. 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall that we have. 

The Chairman. The law gives him police powers in connection 
with investigations ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Has the board itself made any inspections since 
November 1, for the purpose of seeing whether the barrooms are 
conducted in an orderly manner ? 

Mr. Baker. I can not recall that they have; not officially. 

The Chairman. Do you not think that inspections from time to 
time are contemplated by the law—official inspections ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Through your inspector ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

The Chairman. Why have you not given him some orders and 
rules to go by ? 

Mr. Baker. Just at this time he has been very busy in the office, 
and all the force has been quite busy; and with the Christmas holidays 
coming in and all that, I suppose we have not been able to get at it. 

The Chairman. It would seem that Christmas, of all times, would 
be the time when these places ought to be watched most vigilantly, 
when people are out for a good time. 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Has the board taken up for consideration the mat¬ 
ter of issuing orders and instructions and rules to the inspector ? 

Mr. Baker. Stating the rules, do you mean ? 

Senator Jones. Yes. 

Mr. Baker. No; I do not know as it has. 

Senator Jones. As to inspections; that is what I mean. I mean 
since the 1st of November. 

Mr. Baker. No. 

Senator Jones. Do you understand that under the law the real 
duty of this inspector is to see that the saloons are carried on accord¬ 
ing to law; that that is what he is for? 

Mr. Baker. I did not understand he was just for that only. 

Senator Jones. Do you not understand that that is the principal 
thing? The law says there shall be a clerk at $1,500, and the law 
says that there shall also be an inspector at $1,500, who shall have 
police power and who shall inspect under the orders of the board. 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I will read it [reading]: 

Par. 3. That the said board shall appoint a clerk at a salary of $1,500 per annum 
and an inspector with police powers at a salary of $1,500 per annum. Said inspector 
shall make inspections as may be required by this section, under the orders of the 
board, and make full report of such inspections to the board. He shall wear a badge 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 211 

indicating that he is such inspector of the excise board. The board shall keep a full 
record of all applications for license, of all recommendations for and remonstrances 
against the granting of licenses, and the actions taken thereon. 

Senator Jones. Do you not think the purpose of that is that it 
shall be this man’s duty to see from time to time that the saloons are 
obeying the law ? 

Mr. Baker. Under orders of the board ? 

Senator Jones. Why, certainly. The board is not going to give 
him any orders about that- 

Mr. Baker. Oh, yes; it would. 

Senator Jones. When ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not just know about that. 

The Chairman. The law says that said inspector shall make inspec¬ 
tions as he shall be required by this section, under the orders of the 
board. That makes it mandatory on both him and the board that 
these inspections be made; and the spirit of the law is that they shall 
be made frequently. 

Senator Jones. And that he should go around at unusual times, 
so as to find any violations that may be taking place. Do you not 
understand that that provision was put in there for the purpose of 
enabling the board to see that the law is complied with ? The very 
word “inspector” implies that. Is not that true? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. The board never has considered the matter of pre¬ 
paring orders under which the inspector shall act ? 

Mr. Baker. No; it has no specific orders. 

Senator Jones. Why did you not select a clerk who was a sten¬ 
ographer ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know why. 

Senator Jones. You knew you were going to have a good deal of 
stenographic work, and that was largely clerical. That is supposed to 
be clerical work, is it not ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know- 

Senator Jones. That does not come under the head of inspection, 
does it ? 

Mr. Baker. No; not entirely. 

Senator Jones. And it would not be implied as a part of the duties 
of the inspector to act as a stenographer, would it ? 

Mr. Baker. He is there under the orders of the board, whatever 
they may be. 

Senator Jones. Do you think that taking testimony in regard to 
these licenses is inspecting ? 

Mr. Baker. No. 

Senator Jones. Did the board think that? 

Mr. Baker. No; they did not think that was inspection. 

Senator Jones. When did you expect this inspector to do any 
inspecting work ? 

Mr . Baker. I expect him to do quite a good deal of it from now on 
to the busy season again. 

Senator Jones. And then you expect him to do stenographic work 
again ? 

1 Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Do you not think that you had better let him act 
as an inspector and have a clerk who can do this stenographic work ? 

84513°—S. Doc. 981. 63-3-15 




212 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Do you not think you would come more nearly to a compliance with 
the intent of the law if you should do that ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know as we would. 

Senator Jones. You think that the law intends this inspector to 
inspect only when he is directed by the board, and that the board is 
under no obligation to give any such directions unless they want to ? 

Mr. Baker. No; I do not think that way, entirely. He is always 
an inspector. He is not an inspector under our orders. If he sees 
anything in violation of law he surely would report it. That is what 
we expect. 

Senator Jones. But you do not give him any opportunity to go out 
and inspect. You keep him at work in the office. Is not that true? 

Mr. Baker. He has been there during the hours from 9 to 4.30, of 
course. 

Senator Jones. Those are regular office hours, are they not ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. You have not given him any orders about inspec¬ 
ting work afterwards, have you ? 

Mr. Baker. No —we have given him some; yes. 

Senator Jones. What orders have you given him ? 

Mr. Baker. We have sent him out on inspections. 

Senator Jones. But that was to examine this particular matter 
with reference to these applications for licenses? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. Was it to see whether the law had been violated 
or not? Was that last year, before the 1st of November? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Nothing has been done since that? 

Mr. Baker. No. 

The Chairman. I will state that he testified that he visited 130 
places last year, about May and June and July, when there were 
some 500 saloons, I believe, in the District. 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir; there were over 500. 

Senator Thompson. There is one class of people who are absolutely 
excluded by the law from these places where liquor is sold; that 
is, minors? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. There could not be any mistake about the 
construction of the language, “that no minor under the age of 18 
years shall be allowed to enter or be permitted to remain in any place 
where intoxicating liquors are sold, other than a hotel, restaurant, or 
club ” ? Have you not by your rules extended that to grocery stores 
and other places selling liquor with other things, and permitted the 
building of a little two by four railing around that part, and per¬ 
mitted the minors to go in there, within that railing—or without 
the railing ? 

Mr. Baker. They stay without the railing. 

Senator Thompson. Do you permit them to go into these places ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hiompson. Just so they stay without that little railing. Do 
you not think that that is an evasion of the direct prohibition of this 
law with respect to minors, if liquor is sold there ? The law says any 
place where it is sold, you know. Has your attention ever been 
called to that before? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


213 


Mr. Baker. I do not know as it has; no, sir. 

Senator Thompson. You do know that they have these little rail¬ 
ings around, in wholesale houses where they handle other things? 

Mr. Baker. I do. 

Senator Thompson. And that a child of any age is permitted to 
go there and buy peanuts or candy ? 

Mr. Baker. 1 do. 

Senator Thompson. And that there may be adults on the other 
side of the railing buying whisky or any other intoxicating liquor ? 

Mr. Baker. That is true. 

Senator Thompson. Do you not think that the very objects of the 
law have been nullified, then, with reference to prohibiting minors 
from seeing transactions or knowing of transactions of that kind? 

Mr. Baker. No; I do not so regard it. 

Senator Thompson. There is also a direct provision of the law 
that there shall be but one entrance to a place where intoxicating 
liquors are sold. I will give the exact language (reading:) 

Nor provide or permit to be used more than one entrance to said barroom from the 
street, which entrance shall be the one mentioned in his application for license, unless 
the excise board shall especially permit an extra entrance. 

Those applications for extra entrances are common, are they not ? 

Mr. Baker. Not very common. 

Senator Thompson. Your report shows that there were 39 re¬ 
quests during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1914. Do you remember 
tnat ? 

Mr. Baker. That is, last year ? 

Senator Thompson. Yes; 1914, it says here. Do you remember 
how many were refused out of those 39 ? 

Mr. Baker. I can not recall. 

The Chairman. One, I think. 

Senator Thompson. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1914, 
39 requests for permission to maintain such extra entrances were 
presented to the board, of which 38 were granted and 1 was refused. 
Is that correct ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. It is rather a formal matter to apply for an 
extra entrance and get it by the board? What is the procedure? 

Mr. Baker. What do you mean ? 

Senator Thompson. To get an extra entrance. 

Mr. Baker. They apply for permission, and we go and inspect 
them and see whether it is permissible and proper for us to grant 
it, and report. 

Senator Thompson. Whether it is permissible. Supposing that 
Mr. Miller should apply to have an extra entrance on E Street. What 
would your idea be about granting an entrance there ? 

Mr. Baker. He would not get it. 

Senator Thompson. Why not ? 

Mr. Baker. We would not grant an extra entrance where we 
would not issue a license. 

Senator Thompson. And you would not issue a license because it 
would make an extra saloon on that street ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. And it is still there ? 

Mr. Baker. It is so considered. 


214 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

The Chairman. If you did give him an extra entrance at the same 
place of business, it would make another saloon on E Street? 

Mr. Baker. Not an extra entrance, Senator. The application for 
a license is on Fourteenth Street. 

The Chairman. I say, if now he were to apply for an extra entrance 
on Fourteenth Street at his present place of business, and you were 
to give it to him, it would make four saloons on that street ? 

Mr. Baker. On Fourteenth Street ? 

The Chairman. On E Street. I mean if he were now to apply for 
an extra entrance on E Street, and you were to give it to him at the 
same place of business, it would make four saloons on E Street ? 

Mr. Baker. If we should give it to him it would. 

The Chairman. How can an entrance create a saloon ? 

Mr. Baker. It does not create a saloon. 

Senator Jones. That would be the reason why you would deny him 
an extra entrance, because it would make four saloons on E Street? 

Mr. Baker. I have just stated we would not grant an extra en¬ 
trance where we could not license a saloon. 

Senator Jones. You have licensed that saloon? 

Mr. Baker. On Fourteenth Street. 

Senator Jones. But the body of the saloon is the same. 

Mr. Baker. Fourteenth Street is where we licensed that, sir. 

Senator Thompson. You have 300 saloons, as I understand it. 
That does not necessarily mean just 300 places where liquor is sold 
under a license, does it ? 

Mr. Baker. How is that ? 

Senator Thompson. I say you have issued 300 saloon licenses—I 
think that is what you call them-- 

Mr. Baker. Barroom licenses. 

Senator Thompson. That does not necessarily mean only 300 places 
where intoxicating liquor is sold, does it ? 

Mr. Baker. I just do not catch your question. 

The Chairman. He asks whether there are any other places in the 
city where intoxicating liquors are sold besides these licensed places ? 

Mr. Baker. Do I understand you to say that- 

The Chairman. He asks that. Do you know of any other places 
where intoxicating liquors are sold besides these you have licensed? 

Mr. Baker. I do not. 

Senator Thompson. Some of these licenses you call restaurant 
licenses are double-barreled concerns ; they can have a bar, and serve 
in another room in the way of a restaurant; is that right? 

Mr. Baker. The restaurant privilege carries that. 

Senator Thompson. I mean they are just the same, only for table 
arrangements- 

Mr. Baker. It is served from the licensed place; the way I under¬ 
stand it. We do not license the other place at all. It is only served 
from the licensed place. 

Senator Thompson. Of course it is bought and paid for just the 
same as at any other place, except that they do not stand up to the 
bar; is not that right? What I am trying to get at is that there 
are really more than 300 places where they are buying and selling 
intoxicating liquors. 

Mr. Baker. Not to my knowledge. 




EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 215 

Senator Thompson. Take, for instance, the Grand Hotel. There 
is a restaurant there, and then they have some kind of an entertain¬ 
ment, with dancing going on downstairs all the time. They sell it 
down there, do they not ? 

Mr. Baker. They serve it there from the bar, as I understand it. 
I have never been there. 

Senator Thompson. But the man or the woman does not go up to 
the bar to pay the bill ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. They buy it and sell it right there? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. So it is at Geyer’s. They have a bar, and then 
in addition to that they have a large restaurant upstairs and down¬ 
stairs, and they buy and sell liquor in those places just the same as 
in the saloon, under a restaurant license ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. That is true in many, many places; is it not? 
Mr. Baker. I suppose so. 

Senator Thompson. So that there are a large number of places 
where intoxicating liquors are sold other than these 300 licensed 
places ? 

(The witness did not answer.) 

Senator Jones. Mr. Baker, I understand that you have not been 
asked about the granting of barroom licenses in the residence dis¬ 
tricts, and places where less than 50 per cent of the frontage is 
occupied by business houses. I understand that the board has held 
that that provision of the law does not apply to hotels and clubs in 
those sections ? 

Mr. Baker. That is correct. 

Senator Jones. What authority has the board for holding any¬ 
thing of that kind in the law? The law says that no barroom license 
shall be granted in those places. Why did you put in a provision 
excepting clubs and hotels, when such a rule is not in the law? 

Mr. Baker. May I read from this [exhibiting a paper] ? 

Senator Jones. You may read from it, yes; but I should think 
you ought to be able to give your reason without reading from 
something. 

Mr. Baker. We put it in thinking we were giving the expression of 
Congress. 

Senator Jones. Why did you put it in ?' 

Mr. Baker. I do not know just why we put it in, except- 

Senator Jones. You may read what you have there. 

Mr. Baker (reading): 

The portion of the excise law which, upon a casual reading by itself, would seem to 
exclude the granting of barroom licenses to hotels and clubs in the residence portion 
of the District of Columbia reads as follows: 

Senator Jones. What are you reading from ? 

Mr. Baker. Minutes. [Continuing reading:] 

Par. 2. sub. sec. 7. Hereafter no license shall be granted for the establishment or maintenance of a 
barroom or other place for the sale of intoxicating liquors otherwise than in sealed packages and not to be 
drunk on the premises, in any residential portion of the District of Columbia; and it shall be the duty 
of the excise board to determine in the case of each application for license whether the location where 
the barroom is to be located is or is not within the business portion of the District, and if not the license 
shall be denied; and the excise board is hereby authorized and required to determine in each case what 
is so far devoted to business as to constitute it a business street or sect ion; provided, that no license shall 
be granted for any saloon or barroom on any side of any square, block, or tract of land where less than 
50 per cent of the foot frontage, not including saloons or hotels and clubs having barroom licenses under 



216 


EXCISE BOAED OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


this section, is used for business purposes; nor shall intoxicating liquors be sold at wholesale outside of 
the business districts as above provided. 

In the absence of specific words permitting the licensing of hotels and clubs outside 
of the business districts, the board believes it is clearly shown that Congress intended 
to make a distinction between a barroom as such and a barroom license held by hotels 
and clubs as is evident from the language just quoted. 

(The balance of the paper referred to by Mr. Baker, and not read, 
is here printed in full as follows:) 

In determining on the 50 per cent of business frontage, the law says you must not include “saloons or 
hotels and clubs having barroom licenses.” 

Paragraph 2 also provides, subsection 2, that— 

Hereafter no license shall be issued to a hotel having less than fifty bedrooms, etc. 

And in subsection 3, that— 

Not more than three saloons or barrooms other than in hotels and clubs shall be permitted, etc. 

And same paragraph, subsection 4— 

No saloon, barroom, or other place wherein intoxicating liquor is sold at retail or wholesale, other than 
hotels and clubs, shall be licensed, allowed, or maintained, within four hundred feet of any public school- 
house, etc. 

And same paragraph, subsection 5— 

In the issuing of licenses for barrooms it shall be the duty of the excise board to adopt such a policy as 
will reduce the number of barrooms, including those in hotels and clubs, to not exceeding three hundred. 

Paragraph 5 provides, among other tilings, that— 

A barroom license shall be required for every hotel, tavern, barroom, club, or other place, etc. * * * 
’’’bare shall not be granted licenses to more than twenty-five clubs, including those now granted. 

Paragraph 14 provides that— 

No license, except in the cases of hotels, restaurants, and clubs, shall permit the playing of pool or 
billiards, nor shall he, except in the cases of hotels, restaurants, and clubs, permit the playing of music or 
theatricals of any kind, or provide other amusements in his place of business or in connection therewith 
* * * and the sale or dispensing of liquors, except in the case of hotels, restaurants, and clubs, shall be 
confined to the room in which said bar is located. 

Congress has seen fit to permit the issuance of barroom licenses in hotels and clubs 
near schools, churches, and colleges; in fact hotel and club licenses can be issued 
under the law (par. 2, subsec. 5) in buildings immediately adjoining churches, 
schools, and colleges. Can it be seriously contended that Congress intended to 
permit the licensing of these hotels and clubs adjoining schools, churches, and 
colleges, and yet preclude the licensing of such institutions (hotels and clubs) “in 
any residence portion of the District of Columbia” ? It is the exception to find a 
church, school, or college in the business section of the city. More than that, in 
paragraph 2, subsection 3 of the law fixing the number of barrooms that might be 
placed on one or both sides of a street, the law expressly excludes in the calculation 
licenses granted to hotels and clubs. 

Senator Jones. Mr. Baker, what is there in that language that 
makes it evident that it was the intention of Congress to exclude 
hotels and clubs ? 

Mr. Baker. It is just as we gather it. 

Senator Jones. You say it is plain there. What is it that makes 
it plain ? 

Mr. Baker. If you will just let me read the rest of this, it might 
explain it. 

Senator Jones. Who is the gentleman behind you handing you 
these papers and prompting you with reference to these matters» 
Who is he ? 

Mr. Baker. He is our clerk. 

Senator Jones. Oh, he is the clerk to the board? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. I wish, Mr. Baker, you would point out something 
in that provision that you have right there that shows it was the 
intention of Congress to except hotels and clubs from that prohibition. 

Mr. Baker. I do not know that I can. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


217 


Senator Jones. Who prepared that memorandum ? 

Mr. Baker. It was prepared by us. 

Senator Jones. Did you prepare it? 

Mr. Baker. No. 

Senator Jones. Who did? 

Mr. Baker. I think the chairman did. 

Senator Jones. The chairman prepared it? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And it expressed your views? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Can you give me any reasons for, or anything in 
that law that indicates, the conclusion that you have reached, or 
supports it ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know as I can. 

Senator Jones. You can not point out anything in that law that 
warrants the idea that Congress intended to leave out clubs and 
hotels ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know that I can. 

Senator Jones. Do you understand that it is your duty to execute 
this law as it is and not to supplement it by acts of your own ? 

Mr. Baker. We were to promulgate rules and regulations to 
aid- 

Senator Jones. Oh, yes; but you were to carry out this law. You 
were not to make law, were you ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. You have done it there, have you not? 

Mr. Baker. It might appear that way. 

Senator Jones. You say it was evidently the intention of Congress 
to exclude them, but you did not do it, so you are going to do it by 
the rule. Is not that the result of that action ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know but what it might appear that way. 

Senator Jones. You say it looks as if Congress might prohibit 
this, but you did not think that was the intent. So you have tried 
to supply what you think Congress omitted, by your rule ? 

Mr. Baker. ISTot necessarily. 

Senator Jones. Why is it that the board has not carried out this 
law as it is written, instead of trying to make it what they thought 
it ought to be ? Wliy have you not done it ? 

Mr. Baker. We thought we were doing it. 

Senator Jones. You thought you were carrying it out the way 
Congress intended it to be ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Jones. But not the way it is written. Is not that true? 

(The witness did not answer.) 

Senator Jones. You have granted barroom licenses in places 
where less than 50 per cent of the frontage was business, have you 
not? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. Do you know where the Cairo Hotel is? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Do you know whether there is any business on 
that side of the street except the drug store on the corner ? 

Mr. Baker. We have said, except hotels- 




218 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Jones. I was not asking you about hotels, particularly. 
I was asking you if you had not granted barroom licenses where 
less than 50 per cent of the foot frontage was occupied by busi¬ 
ness houses. You have done that in a number of cases, have you 
not? 

Mr. Baker. Hotels and clubs. 

Senator Jones. But the law does not except them. 

Mr. Baker. I do not know that it does. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any breweries located in residence 
districts % • 

Mr. Baker. I can not recall one. 

The Chairman. Could you furnish the committee with a list of the 
liquor properties owned by local breweries? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do your records show who owns these various 
liquor houses? ^ 

Mr. Baker. It was brought out in the application. They have to 
state in the application who owns the property in which the saloon 
is to be. 

The Chairman. Do the breweries own any of these saloons ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

The Chairman. How many ? 

Mr. Baker. I could not tell you. 

The Chairman. Gen. Smith, have you any recollection along that 
line? 

Mr. Smith. I have not, sir. 

The Chairman. How many, approximately? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know; but it is a very easy matter to get up 
the data. 

The Chairman. Will you furnish us a list of them ? 

Mr. Smith. It will be here to-morrow morning for you. 

(The list referred to is here printed in full as follows:) 


List of properties owned by brewers or brewery companies in which barroom licenses were 

asked for in 1914. 


Barroom 


- 



applica¬ 
tion No. 

Applicant. 

Location. 

Owner, Nov. 1, 1914. 

Disposition. 

9 

John Rickies. 

300 Sixth Street NW. 

Albert Carry. 

Refused. 

13 

Leopold Birkle. 

1245 H Street NE ... 

A. and C. A. Carry, trus¬ 
tees. 

Granted. 



19 

Louise Gordon. 

407 Q Street NW. 

.do. 

Do. 

29 

Samuel A. Taylor. 

212 Ninth Street NW. 

A. Carry et al .. 

Do. 

30 

Isaac H. Rowland. 

511 Ninth Street NW. 

Christian Heurich. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

34 

A. J. Lohse. 

1021 E Street NW... . 

National Capitol Brewing 
Co. 

A. Carry, Trustee. 

42 

Commercial Hotel Co... 

640 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW. 




47 

Julius Egloff. 

200 Third Street SE.... 

National Capitol Brewing 
Co. 

.do. 

Do. 

Refused. 

52 

Jacob Kronbeim. 

123 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW. 




59 

Tim. H. O’Connor. 

1217 E Street NW. 

Christian Heurich. 

Granted. 

Do. 

Refused. 

Granted. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

73 

Gus. A. Brahler. 

410 E Street NE. 

Washington Brewing Co.. 
Albert Carry. 

74 

Frank Stoermer. 

1326 Sixth Street SW.... 

75 

Martin McDonald. 

1200 D Street NW. 

A. Carry...".. 

79 

P. J. Callan. 

238 Second Street NW. 


80 

John Morris. 

1610 U Street NW 

National Capitol Brewing 
Co. 

A. Carry.. 

82 

D. E. Riordan. 

227 Seventh Street SW.... 

96 

Stephen Chaconas. 

468 Pennsylvania Avenue 

National Capitol Brewing 




NW. 

Co. 


101 

Frank Endres. 

10151 Street NW. 

Christian Heurich. 

Do. 

Do. 

108 

John C. Ronayne. 

501 H Street NE. 

National Capitol Brewing 
Co. 





























































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


219 


List of 'properties owned by brewers or brewery companies in which barroom licenses were 

ashed for in 1914 —Continued. 


Barrom 



"j -- 


applica¬ 
tion No. 

Applicant. 

Location. 

Owner, Nov. 1, 1894.. 

Disposition. 

122 

Ward Savage.. 

444 Ninth Street NW 

National Capital Brewing 
Co. 

Granted. 




125 

Eugene Daly. 

3050K Street NW.... 

Do. 

Refused. 

Do. 

Granted. 

Refused. 

140 

Elizabeth Mack.. 

1425 H Street NE. 


147 

D. F. Sullivan. 

' 1400 North Capitol Street.. 

A. Carry. 

152 

Fritz Herzog.. 

1115 E Street NW. 


154 

Wm. Fahey. 

1201 Twentieth Street 

Christian Heurich 

155 

P. L. Keyser... 

NW. 

429 Eighth Street NW. 

.do 

Granted. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

156 

Emma Hennige. 

1421 H Street NE. 

A. Carry... 

167 

Edw. Mannix. 

3059 M Street NAV.. 

Christian Henrir-h 

202 

J. W. Gray. 

636 D Street NAV. 

A. Carry 

206 

John Zirwes. 

301 Pennsylvania Avenue 
711 O Street NAV. 

Christian Heiirieh 

211 

May E. Thomas. 

A. Carry 

213 

O’Hanlon & Murray_ 

1521 Seventh Street NAV.. 

Christian Heurich. 

216 

M. M. Lyons. 

906 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NAV. 

.do 

Do. 




219 

Rud. Haenisch... 

643 D Street NW. 

.do. 

Do. 

Refused. 

Do. 

Granted. 

Do. 

220 

Bruno Fischer. 

1148 AA r ater Street SAV. 

.do 

237 

Annie E. Hohmann.. 

475 I, Street NAV. 

A. Carry. 

251 

Jas. B. McDonnell. 

312 Seventh Street SAV 

Robt. Portner, estate.. 
Christian Heurich 

241 

W. J. F. Rupertus. 

1418 Pennsylvania Ave¬ 
nue NAV. 


Maurice Ganey . 


250 

615 Seventh Street NAA r ... 

Abner Drurv Co 

Do. 

Refused. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

267 

John R. Morris . .. 

2027 Virginia Avenue NW. 
2401 I Street NW. ... 

A. Carry.. 

297 

Louis H. Nesline. 


300 

Geo. Schnebel. 

900 Eighth Street SE. 

National Cauital Brewing 
Co. 

.do. 

310 

Kain Lipnick. 

1332 Wisconsin Avenue 



NW. 


311 

W. J. O’Leary. 

733 North Capitol Street.. 
436 L Street NAV. 

A. Carry, ti’ustee 

Granted. 

Refused 

319 

J. J. Ronayne.. 

P. A. Drurv. 

328 

Maurice Keane. 

1743 Pennsjdvania Ave¬ 
nue NAV. 

Christian Heurich 

Granted. 




330 

R. R. Hogan. 

3033 M Street NAV... 

Abner-Drury Co 

Do. 

Do 

332 

L. J. Kearnev. 

1811 L Street NAV. 

A. Carry, trustee _ 

342 

Wm. II. Achterkirchen. 

4530 AA’isconsin Avenue 

Christian Heurich. 

Refused. 



NAV. 


345 

C. J. Cordon.1 

1009 Eleventh Street SE .. 

A. Carry. 

Do. 

354 

Wm. E. Burke .. 

3258 M Street NAV.. 

Christian Heurich 

Do. 

373 

J. J. Flanagan.1 

439 New Jersey Avenue 

AA’aslnngton Brewery Co.. 

Do. 



NAV. 


362 

C. C. Leavens. 

New Jersey Avenue and 

A. Carry. 

Granted. 



C Street SE. 


379 

W. J. Brown. 

709 O Street NAAL . 


Do. 

400 

Thos. McCarthy. 

1004 Pennsylvania Ave- 

Christian Heurich. 1 

Do. 



nue NW. 



406 

T. J. Fanning. 

1228 D Street NAV 

P. A. Drury. 

r# Do. 

411 

Michael Raftery ... 

1908 Pennsylvania Ave- 
nue NAV. 

. .do. 

Do. 



410 

Miller Bros. 

501 Fourteenth Street NAA r . 

Christian Heurich. 

Do. 


I 


SUMMARY. 


[58 applications for licenses in brewery-owned properties out of 112 applications made in 1914.] 




1 

Granted. 

^ Refused. 

Albert Carry. 

17 

10 

7 

A. and C. A. Carry, trustees. 

2 

2 


Albert Carry, trustee. . 

3 

3 


Abner-Drury Co. 

2 

2 


Christian Heurich. 

17 

13 

4 

National Capital Brewing Co. 

11 

7 

4 

Robert Portner estate. . 

1 

1 


Washington Brewery Co. 

2 

1 

1 

P. A. Drury. .. 

3 

2 

1 

Total. 

58 

41 

17 






Properties in above list. 58 

Barroom licenses in said properties. 41 

Barroom applications made 1914-1915. 412 

Barroom applications granted 1914-1915. 300 


The Chairman. Now, Mr. Baker, any further statement you would 
like to make we shall be glad to have. 























































































































































220 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Thompson. I want to ask you about Loftus’s place, at the 
corner of D and Thirteen-and-a-half Street. Do you know where 
that is ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Do you remember an opening on what is known 
as a residence street there on D Street ? The opening of that saloon 
was originally from the residence section, was it not—the residence 
side of the block—before this law went into effect ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know anything about that. 

Senator Thompson. Do you remember his applying for an addi¬ 
tional opening or a transfer on Thirteen-and-a-half Street, just around 
the corner ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

The Chairman. To transfer his entrance from the D Street side to 
the Thirteen-and-a-half Street side ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes; I recall that. 

Senator Thompson. As a matter of fact, do you not know that both 
entrances have been used since this law went into effect, and are being 
used, one from the residence side and one from the other side ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. You have never been there to see? 

Mr. Baker. I passed by there and found it closed. 

Senator Thompson. Very recently ? 

Mr. Baker. Within the last month, or such a matter. 

Senator Thompson. A while ago I asked you relative to the 
Mergner place, and you stated that it was not called to your atten¬ 
tion that a fence was built there for the purpose of making the dis¬ 
tance farther away from the public school. Did you not so state? 

Mr. Baker. I may have said so. 

Senator Thompson. In the hearings here held in August—No. 89. 
I do not know whether that has anything to do with it or not. Is 
that the number of the application ? 

Mr. Baker. What is the name ? 

Senator Thompson. John E. Mergner, 89, 415 East Capitol Street. 
Mr. Shiehy asked this question [reading]: 

And the main purpose was to extend the distance from the schoolhouse to the 
entrance to your place? 

The applicant stated that that was one of them. 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Do you not remember that he admitted that 
was one of the purposes, so as to get it away from the schoolhouse 
without moving the building ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not remember. I do not recall that at all. 

The Chairman. We would like to have the files in the Loftus case, 
also. 

Mr. Smith. At Thirteen-and-a-half Street ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Smith. I will bring them. 

Senator Jones. Do you know Mr. Hurdle, or his saloon that he 
used to run on Pennsylvania Avenue ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. As I understand it, he was granted a transfer from 
329 Pennsylvania Avenue to 345 Pennsylvania Avenue, and then 
was refused a license ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


221 


Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Do you know whether or not any complaints 
were ever made with reference to the conduct of his saloon? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall. 

Senator Jones. None of the police reports were against him, were 
they? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall, sir, that they were. 

Senator Jones. He had been there, or at 329, for about 20 years; 
is not that correct ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. He is just across, or on the opposite side of the 
street, from the Philadelphia House, is he not? 

Mr. Baker. I just do not remember; but I think he is in the same 
square, possibly. 

Senator Jones. Across the street? 

Mr. Baker. Yes; but he is on the opposite side. 

Senator Jones. Can you tell why the board granted a saloon 
license, to the Philadelphia House but refused Mr. Hurdle ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not know as I can. 

Senator Jones. There had been complaints, and there were com¬ 
plaints and protests against the Philadelphia House, were there not ? 

Mr. Baker. I think there were. 

Senator Jones. And there were no protests made to the board 
against Mr. Hurdle’s application, were there ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall. 

Senator Jones. But the Philadelphia House was granted a license 
and Mr. Hurdle was refused a license. 

Mr. Baker. So it seems. 

Senator Jones. Was it not also called to your attention that he 
had transferred from 329 to 345, and had gone to an expense of 
about $1,000 in fitting up his place and putting in sanitary arrange¬ 
ments, and all that sort of thing? Was not that called to the atten¬ 
tion of the board ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not recall that. 

Senator Jones. But that will appear in the hearings, if there was 
an of the kind ? 



Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And that the Philadelphia House license was 
granted and the sanitary arrangements had to be made after the 
granting of the license ? Is not that correct ? 

Mr. Baker. Possibly so. 

Senator Jones. But you do not know—you can not tell now—why 
the one was granted and the other refusea ? 

Mr. Baker. I can not. 

Senator Jones. Mr. Chairman, I want to put this letter in the 
record. It is from Mrs. Hurdle. 

(The letter referred to by Senator Jones is here printed in full as 


follows:) 


Washington, D. 0.. 

January 18, 1915. 


Hon. Senator Jones. 

Kind Sir: In reading Sunday’s paper I see where you claim that the excise board 
had not carried out the Jones-Works bill according to law. I as one of the saloon¬ 
keepers’ wives who was refused a license after transferring my husband from 329 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW. to 345 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., being 20 years on the 
one square in saloon business and not a black mark against his reputation or business. 


222 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


We pat in all sanitary improvements as the excise board said was required before 
they could grant the transfer cost us $1,000. When the excise board were going around 
visiting the saloons to report on this year’s license General Smith examined our place 
and remarked to my husband, clenenes is Godness; having nothing against us we 
thought we would be all right. My husband was the only one that was granted a 
transfer that was refused a license. 

They made my husband put in sanatary improvements before granting our transfer. 
Now I wish to say not very far away from us they granted a license and the place had 
no sanatary improvements but they allowed the improvements to be made after the 
granting of the license. Now is that justice? If they had of transferred us without 
makeing us spend $1,000 it would look more like justice to the excise board. We 
kept strickly a gentleman’s house for white only. We never catered for any rough 
element. Our police officers have never had any occasion to come in our place of 
business through any trouble and we always lived up to the rules of the excise laws. 

I myself called on Mr. Baker in person at his home and stated my circumstances to 
him—asked to do something for me. He said he was very sorry but they didn’t 
want any saloons on the north side of the Avenue. He said we have nothing against 
Mr. Hurdle but the north side must be closed. 

Pennsylvania Avenue was not a prohibited zone, and there was nothing in the 
Jones-Works bill to keep respectable places from license. 

I think like you, they have overstepped their othority, and I wish to thank you 
for the steps you are taken to justice. Mr. Shoemaker, attorney for the Anti-saloon 
League althou against liquor could say nothing against my husband. Had Mr. Shoe¬ 
maker his say at the hearing of the saloonkeepers’ license things would be alltogether 
different, I have said nothing in my letter that I would not answer in public. 

Mrs. Chas. Hurdle. 

345 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, D. C. 


Senator Jones. Have we evidence in the record as to these two 
cases ? I suppose you have it in the Philadelphia House case ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. 1 want the Hurdle application record also. 

Mr. Smith. Very well. 

The Chairman. Mr. Baker, we should be glad to have any further 
remarks that you care to make. 

Senator Jones. If Mr. Baker has nothing further, I want to pre¬ 
sent here a letter from Mr. E. F. La Porte, of the National Water 
Co., of Baltimore, Md., in reference to the Marks House, and have it 
go into the record. 

(The chairman read the letter referred to, which is here printed in 
full as follows:) 

National Water Co., 
Baltimore, February 20, 1915. 

Senator Jones, 

Member of Investigating Committee of Excise Board , 

United States Capitol, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: I desire to call your attention to a place in your city at Tenth and E 
conducted by a man named Marks. That the place is disreputable there is no ques¬ 
tion, and many business men in "Washington are at a loss to understand why or how 
he could obtain a license to do business. This same man was closed up here for con¬ 
ducting a joint of like character. 

Thursday night I went into this place with a business man who was endeavoring 
to collect a bill which had been due for 11 months. We were invited to sit at a table 
with two women, one of whom was smoking a cigar and reciting the most filthy stories. 
When the party I accompanied into the place asked for a check without the slightest 
provocation we were assaulted. 

Men and places of such character are a drawback to respectable cafds who comply 
with the law and are conducting a legitimate business. 

An investigation will prove to you that what I tell you are facts and if you desire 
to investigate my standing and integrity, you can do so through the Masonic, Elks 
Moose and Eagle fraternities of which I am a member. 

Yours very truly, 


E. F. La Porte. 

Every first-class cafd man in Washington can tell you who I am. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


223 


Senator Jones. Have you anything to say with reference to any 
statements in that letter ? 

Mr. Baker. I have not, sir. 

The Chairman. Mrs. Hurdle is a white lady, is she not ? 

Mr. Baker. Oh, yes. 

The Chairman. And the man who owns the Philadelphia Hotel is 
a colored man ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. I understood you to say that you are familiar 
with and had examined, before issuing the license, the premises at 
Mr. Mergner’s saloon, No. 89 in these cases ? 

Mr. Baker. Only in the measurement— I was there and visited it 
and measured it. I was there officially to measure it. 

Senator Thompson. You were there to measure it, and you saw the 
situation there relative to the schoolhouse? 

Mr. Baker. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. That was a building used exclusively for school 
purposes, was it not ? There is no question about that, is there ? 

Mr. Baker. I do not think so. 

Senator Thompson. That is a real public school? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. With “a steeple and a bell.” I find in these 
fdes a little plat, or what purports to be a plat, showing the situation 
at that place, and I will ask you to examine it and see if that does 
not represent it fairly, as you remember it ? 

Mr. Baker (after examining plat referred to). Yes. 

Senator Thompson. That was called to your attention before the 
issuance of the license ? 

Mr. Baker. It may have been, sir. 

Senator Thompson. It is a part of the files in the case ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes; it is a part of the files. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

Senator Thompson. I would like to have this made a part of the 
record. 

(The plat referred to is printed in full as follows:) 


224 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 




<— WEST 


EAST CAPITOL STREET 


EAST 


SIDEWALK 





Parking 

Parking 



<_ 

-SIDEWALK- 



1 X ^ 

\ / 

\ / 

\ / 

Saloon 

I _. . 

Laundry 

Store 

Store 

415 East Capitol 




1 Chart, showing the location of barroom at 415 East Capitol 
Street, with reference to schoolhouse at corner of Fifth and A 
Streets SE. 

There is wide parking on both sides of East Capitol Street. In 
the square between Fourth and Fifth Streets, a public sidewalk 
extends almost the entire distance on the south side of street, 
immediately in front of the store buildings, in addition to the 
usual sidewalk near the street curb. 

As shown above, indicated by the lines in heavy black ink, 
an iron fence has been built across the parking, on either side of 
the barroom, extending to the building on the east side, but 
only to the sidewalk on the west side. This obstructs the 
sidewalk on one side only, but it is on the side nearest the school 
at Fifth and A Street SE. The former route of direct commu¬ 
nication is shown by the dash line. The route created by the 
new fence is shown by the black dotted line. This fence was 
erected shortly after the enactment of the excise law that 
becomes effective November 1,1914. 


School 


I 


A STREET SE. 


iThe lines on this original chart were indicated in colors, therefore in the printing of this plate the 
descriptive note was changed and the words changed are indicated in italic.—Printing Clerk. 


FIFTH STREET SE. 
























































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


225 


TESTIMONY OF MR. THOMAS RTJPPERT. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your address here in the District of 
Columbia ? 

Mr. Ruppert. 1825 Hamline Street NE. 

The Chairman. You had a saloon in a certain part of the District 
of Columbia last year? 

Mr. Ruppert. Yes, sir—145 B Street SE. 

The Chairman. Did one of the commissioners live in that same 
block ? 

Mr. Ruppert. Yes, sir; Mr. Bride.. 

The Chairman. Was yours the only saloon in that block? 

Mr. Ruppert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Were any protests ever made against the manner 
in which you conducted your business ? 

Mr. Ruppert. None whatever. 

The Chairman. Did you at any time ask the excise board to 
examine your place to see if you were complying with the law? 

Mr. Ruppert. I did, last spring. Last spring when Mr. Sheehy 
was chairman of the committee I heard he was going to resign and 
Mr. Bride was going to take his job. Of course I got shaky, then, 
and I went down and told the excise board to come up and look at 
the place, to see if there was anything like schools or churches there. 
If there were, I wanted to know, and would get a transfer and move. 

They came up there and measured me as close as they could. 
They measured me an air line. I said, “How do you make it?” 
Sheehy said, “Ruppert, you are 5 feet short.” I said, “How is that? 
We have got over 450.” He said, “Right straight down the middle 
of the street.” I said, “I thought you couldn't walk like that.” 

The Chairman. Who had given you the 450-foot measurement ? 

Mr. Ruppert. The captain had given us 447. 

The Chairman. The police captain ? 

Mr. Ruppert. Yes. We had been measured several times. 

The Chairman. When you had made application before, when you 
first wanted to do business ? 

Mr. Ruppert. Oh, we had this place for seven years. 

The Chairman. Go ahead. Why had the captain measured you 
before that ? 

Mr. Ruppert. It wasn't time for it yet. He did not measure until 
you put up the money for your license. Then the captain measures. 
That was early in the spring. Just when Sheehy was ready to re¬ 
sign—that was around in March, I should think, or April, or around 
there—he came out and measured it as close as he could, and he came 
back and said, “You are 5 feet short—395 feet to that church down 
there.” “You did not measure right,” I said. He measured right 
in the middle of the street, and you can't walk like that, and he 
measured against the traffic regulations. I told him, “You didn't 
measure it right.” He said, “We will measure any way we want; 
any way we feel like.” I said, “I had better move, then.” He says, 
“No; you have got that side entrance. Shut your main entrance 
up and use the side entrance. You have got 7 feet across from 
there.” 

The Chairman. Were the other commissioners present? 


226 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Ruppert. Yes; Raker and Mr. Smith was with them. The 
next day I got permission to shut the front door up and use the side 
door. We thought we were all right. Also, I had to put plate glass 
in and tile flooring and new plumbing, and it cost me $500. We 
even put that in. 

The Chairman. Did they require you to put in the new plumbing? 

Mr. Ruppert. Yes, sir; they had me arrested; down in the police 
court, if I did not put it in. I do not think the commissioners did 
that. I think the plumbing inspector did that. That was none 
of their business. Of course, we fixed all that and was looking for 
getting the license then, but when the licenses came around I did 
not get any. They came around and inspected me, and he said, 
“You are still short”—after we had moved the door. He said, 
“You are still too close to that church.” 

The Chairman. When was this measurement made which gave 
you 450 feet ? 

Mr. Ruppert. That was made right shortly after we put the money 
up. The captain gave us that. 

The Chairman. After you employed a lawyer? After you put 
what money up ? 

Mr. Ruppert. No, no; before. 

The Chairman. After you put what money up ? 

Mr. Ruppert. The money for the license, the $1,500. As soon as 
you put the money up and report as to the reason you are in, they 
measure you up. 

The Chairman. Do you remember the date of that measurement? 

Mr. Ruppert. It was in August; it was about the 15th of August. 
It might have been a little before or a little after, but around the 
middle of August. 

The Chairman. That measurement was by right angles, and it 
gave you 450 feet ? 

Mr. Ruppert. 447 feet. That is what the captain gave us. 

The Chairman. What captain was that? 

Mr. Ruppert. Capt. Mulhall, Fifth Precinct, southeast. 

Senator Dillingham. Was your license refused? 

Mr. Ruppert. Oh, yes; turned down. 

The Chairman. Your license was refused in November ? 

Mr. Ruppert. Yes, sir; the new license was turned down. 

The Chairman. Was anybody close to you relicensed? 

Mr. Ruppert. No; I was the only one in the block. 

The Chairman. Who represented you in your effort to get a 
license ? 

Mr. Ruppert. Alexander Bell. 

The Chairman. I mean, to have your license renewed. 

Mr. Ruppert. Oh! Alexander Bell represented me. 

The Chairman. What did you pay him ? 

Mr. Ruppert. $100 originally, and if I got it he was going to get 
$250 more, but he did not succeed, so he did not get any more. 

The Chairman. When this police captain made this measure¬ 
ment, was that when you first got a license ? 

Mr. Ruppert. No, sir; it was just when he applied for the new 
license. You know, we applied for it the 1st of September. You 
have to put your money up the 1st of September, and when you have 


EXCISE BOARD OE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


227 


E ut your money up, then he measures it. You have to have it up 
efore the 1st of September. 

The Chairman. But that was after they had come down and told 
you to change your entrance ? 

Mr. Ruppert. Oh, yes. That was early in the spring, when 
Sheehy was going to resign. That is the time I got scared. 

The Chairman. Do you know why it was that he charged you a 
contingent fee of $250 in addition to your $100? 

Mr. Ruppert. Sure. 

The Chairman. Why? 

Mr. Ruppert. Because he said, "We can not do anything if you 
do not have a lawyer. You want to get a lawyer. I am the only 
one that can get it for you,” he says. 

The Chairman. Did he say anything about what he would do with 
the $250 ? 

Mr. Ruppert. I suppose he needed it. 

Senator Thompson. What did he say about it ? 

Mr. Ruppert. He said he wanted $100 down, and after he got the 
license he wanted $250 more. I had to sign a contract. 

Senator Thompson. Did he s&y anything about what it was neces¬ 
sary to do in order to get the license ? 

Mr. Ruppert. No. He didn’t tell me anything. Of course, I 
suppose if I had paid that money down then, why, I would have got 
it. I went around the wrong way. 

The Chairman. Was there any protest against your license being 
renewed ? 

Mr. Ruppert. Nothing whatever. Even some temperance people 
living in that square said they would be more than glad for me to 
have it—people that was against liquor. 

Senator Thompson. There never had been any complaint against 
the place you ran ? 

Mr. Ruppert. Not as I know of. 

The Chairman. Do you know who got your license? 

Mr. Ruppert. I do not know who got it. A man that came from 
the southeast- 

The Chairman. How close is he to the church? 

Mr. Ruppert. I do not know; but they told me he is closer than 
I was. 

The Chairman. Do you know that he is closer than you are ? 

Mr. Ruppert. I do not know. The paper said so. 

The Chairman. Did you ever look it over ? 

Mr. Ruppert. They said it was. Of course, that is just saying it. 
The Chairman. Suppose you step it off and see. 

Mr. Ruppert. They would not take my word for it. That would 
not be worth anything. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF ME. THAD B. SAEGEANT. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your full name ? 

Mr. Sargeant. Thad B. Sargeant. 

The Chairman. And your office ? 

84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3-16 



228 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Sargeant. 1717 Fourteenth Street; real estate business. 

The Chairman. Where is your home address ? 

Mr. Sargeant. 1648 Newton Street. 

The Chairman. How long have you been a resident of the District 
of Columbia ? 

Mr. Sargeant. All my life; 40 years. 

The Chairman. Do you know John J. Madden, a saloon keeper in 
the District of Columbia ? 

Mr. Sargeant. I do. 

The Chairman. Wffiere is his present place of business ? 

Mr. Sargeant. He is now located at 401 Four-and-a-half Street— 
Four-and-a-half and Virginia Avenue. I know where it is, but I do 
not recall the streets. 

The Chairman. Did you have anything to do with Mr. Madden’s 
unsuccessful efforts to get a license ? 

Mr. Sargeant. I had nothing to do with the getting of the license 
for him. I was acting as his agent in the purchase of a certain 
property to which he expected to get a transfer of his license. 

The Chairman. You found three different places at which he tried 
to get transfers? 

Mr. Sargeant. There were three places that he tried to transfer 
to, in which I was interested in the sale of the properties. In each 
case we failed. 

The Chairman. Because the transfers were not allowed him by the 
board ? 

Mr. Sargeant. They were not allowed him by the board in any 
of those cases. 

The Chairman. Shortly after that, or some time after that, did he 
succeed in securing a license ? 

Mr. Sargeant. He did; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Or a transfer ? 

Mr. Sargeant. A transfer of a license; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. State what conversation you had with him re¬ 
garding that? 

Mr. Sargeant. In the three previous attempts, after his failure to 
secure transfers, in each of the three previous applications that he 
made it was stated by a member of the board that there would be 
some chance for him to obtain a transfer if he would stay in south¬ 
west Washington where he was at that time located. But he did not 
want to remain in southwest Washington; he wanted to go into some 
other section of the city, preferably the northwest. So the fourth 
application that he made, the purchase of the property was made 
through some other real estate firm, and after I found out about it I 
asked him why he did not buy the property through me. I said, 
“You told me that you would like to go northwest, and that is the 
reason why I never offered you any southwest places. Now you are 
going southwest, and it will be comparatively easy for you to get a 
transfer if you can get one at all.” He says, “Well, you would not 
come through,” or “You did not have any influence,” or “You could 
not help me to get a transfer.” 

I told him there was nothing that I could do any more than I had 
done toward securing the property for him. He was, in my opinion, 
out of the prohibited zone, which was as much as I could do toward 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 229 

his securing a transfer. The rest of it had to be attended to by his 
attorney. He told me that I had no influence and could not do any¬ 
thing for him. I said, “What do you mean?” “Well,” he says, “it 
takes money to get a transfer.” I said, “You do not mean it takes 
money with the excise board to get a transfer, do you?” He says, 
“You don’t understand.” In that conversation I noticed that the 
newspapers have put it in such a way as to create a false impression. 
There never has been a time at which I have ever questioned the in¬ 
tegrity and well meaning of the excise board. I had no reason to 
do so. I have never known any tiling that they have done that was 
not absolutely all right. But the answer that Mr. Madden made to 
me, I repeated that at a later date to Mr. Wilson, the president of 
the Anti-Saloon League, and I had no more way of knowing what Mr. 
Madden meant any more than my own opinion in regard to the mat¬ 
ter. My opinion was not that this money was to be paid to the excise 
board in consideration of the transfer, but I supposed what Mr. 
Madden meant by that was that he would have to give money, pos¬ 
sibly, to some one else in the shape of an attorney’s fee, or something 
similar to that, in order that influence might be brought to bear with 
the board toward getting him the transfer. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN M. TRANT. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your place of business? 

Mr. Trant. I have sold out my place of business. 

The Chairman. Were you in the saloon business? 

Mr. Trant. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. At what place? 

Mr. Trant. 629 Four-and-a-half Street. 

The Chairman. Were you granted a license in November, or a 
renewal ? 

Mr. Trant. Last May, I believe; some time last year. I can not 
remember the time. 

The Chairman. You were granted a license? 

Mr. Trant. A transfer; yes. 

The Chairman. How long had you been in the saloon business 
before that? 

Mr. Trant. About 11 years. 

The Chairman. Were you represented by an attorney in securing 
that transfer? 

Mr. Trant. Yes. 

The Chairman. Who was your lawyer? 

Mr. Trant. Mr. Mangan. 

The Chairman. What was his fee ? 

Mr. Trant. $25. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about any other fees that 
anybody else paid to get a license ? 

Mr. Trant. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you have any difficulty m getting your 
transfer ? 

Mr. Trant* No, sir. 


230 


EXCISE BOARD OE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. Were there any protests against you? 

Mr. Trant. Some; yes. 

The Chairman. Some protests against you? 

Mr. Trant. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you feel that it was necessary to employ an 
attorney ? 

Mr. Trant. No; I did not think so afterwards. 

The Chairman. What made you think that you had to have a 
lawyer ? 

Mr. Trant. I just got him, that is all, because I seen everybody 
else getting one. 

(Tne witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM T. BTJRDINE. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Burdine, you had a saloon before the present 
license year began ? 

Mr. Burdine. Yes—709 D Street NW. 

The Chairman. Were you declined a license? 

Mr. Burdine. Yes. 

The Chairman. Were there any protests against the manner in 
which you had conducted your business ? 

Mr. Burdine. None whatever, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know why they did not give you a license ? 

Mr. Burdine. No, sir; I have never been able to find out. 

The Chairman. Did the board give you any reason? 

Mr. Burdine. No, sir; except Mr. Smith. I met him one day, and 
he told me that the reason was that he had to give out so many, 
and I failed among the rest. That is the only reason he gave me. 

The Chairman. Who was your lawyer ? 

Mr. Burdine. I did not have any until I found out I was turned 
down, and I got Mr. Colbert to see if I could not get a rehearing to 
get one of those three places left over; and I got him and went down 
to the board, and he called for my papers, and the papers were brought 
out, and he looked over them and said, “ You have got a good clean 
record here. Your police record and your sanitary record are all 
clear.” He turned the jacket over, and there it was, granted on the 
29th day of October. 

The Chairman. It was marked “granted” ? 

Mr. Burdine. Yes, sir; and a line drawn through “granted.” The 
names had been obliterated by an eraser, but not entirely obliter¬ 
ated. Below it was marked “ Refused,” and the names signed under 
that. I got Mr. Colbert to find out if I could not get a rehearing, 
and I never heard anything from it afterwards, because they started 
to give these other people a license—Miller Bros. The Herald came 
out with a report Sunday morning, and I think that scared them into 
giving Miller Bros, a license. 

The Chairman. What did you pay your lawyer? 

Mr. Burdine. $25. I did not think I had to have any in the first 
place, because I was in a saloon zone. I was told that I was in a 
zone, and that I had nothing against me. 

The Chairman. How many saloons were there on that side of the 
block, doing business? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 231 

Mr. Burdine. None whatever. 

The Chairman. Yours was the only one? 

Mr. Burdine. The only one in the whole block. 

The Chairman. In that whole block? 

Mr. Burdine. Back on E Street one block away—at Eighth and E, 
and one at Seventh and E. 

The Chairman. Were there any schools or churches near you? 

Mr. Burdine. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Had there ever been any complaints against 
your place before? 

Mr. Burdine. None whatever. 

Senator Thompson. There never had been ? 

Mr. Burdine. No, sir. I had been in the business here 48 years 
one way and another. 

Senator Thompson. You have never been arrested or charged with 
anything ? 

Mr. Burdine. I was charged with doing a Sunday business down 
there, but there was .no conviction because they could not prove it. 

Senator Thompson. How long ago was that? 

Mr. Burdine. That was about four years ago. That was a little 
spite work on the captain’s part. 

Senator Thompson. Was the case tried? 

Mr. Burdine. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. It was dismissed? 

Mr. Burdine. Yes, sir; all dismissed—three cases, all dismissed at 
one time. It was three in one month—just spite work. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any fees paid by anyone else in 
the matter of getting licenses? 

Mr. Burdine. No, sir; only hearsay, that is all. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF REV. ARTHUR RANDALL. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. State your full name. 

Mr. Randall. Arthur Randall. 

The Chairman. What is your address ? 

Mr. Randall. 117 O Street NW. 

The Chairman. Will you state your experience in contesting a 
license for a liquor house before the excise board ? In the first place, 
what is your business ? 

Mr. Randall. I am a minister; pastor of the People’s Congrega¬ 
tional Church on M Street between Sixth and Seventh NW. 

The Chairman. Is that a colored church ? 

Mr. Randall. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been there in the calling of a 
minister ? 

Mr. Randall. Since 1902. 

The Chairman. State your experience in the matter of any liquor 
houses near your church, or elsewhere. 

Mr. Randall. The saloon against which I brought to the hearing 
of the excise board written protests—I think also from the president 
of the board of education—was one situated at the corner of First and 


232 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

O Streets NW., opposite which the M Street High School is now being 
erected. The reason why the president of the board of trustees pro¬ 
tested against the licensing of that saloon was because of its nefarious 
character. I have just moved there less than a year. People have 
been arrested in the saloon, and it was so bad I could not have my 
children out in my yard. I lived five or six doors down from it before 
the October era of relicensing them under the new regulations. 

The Chairman. Why was it that your children could not be out 
in the yard ? 

Mr. Randall. Because of the drunks, and their arrests in and 
around the saloon. 

The Chairman. Did anyone bring this matter to the attention of 
the excise board ? 

Mr. Randall. I did, personally, in my protest against it. 

The Chairman. Is this a colored high school directly across the 
street ? 

Mr. Randall. It is being now erected there, and I called attention 
to that, besides, on other grounds. We protested against it on the 
ground that there were two inhabited alleys in close proximity to this 
saloon; and also, Senator, because that saloon is not in what can be 
claimed to be a business block. There are less than 50 per cent of 
business houses in that block. 

The Chairman. On that side of the block where the saloon is ? 

Mr. Randall. On that side of the block where the saloon is. 

Senator Thompson. All the other places are private residences ? 

Mr. Randall. There are other business places. There are a Chi¬ 
nese laundry and restaurant and barber shop. I counted the houses. 
I went particularly through each house in there, and the majority 
of them were residences. 

The Chairman. Did the majority of them also protest against 
this saloon? 

Mr. Randall. Not on that block. That was the First Street block 
where the saloon faced. But on my side, O Street, running right 
perpendicular to that same street, is where I made the protest. I 
was sick during that time, and I got up out of my bed, against my 
doctor’s advice, to make this protest. 

The Chairman. What did the board say about this protest and 
your arguments ? Did they make any comments ? 

Mr. Randall. Yes. I appealed. I said that, due to the busi¬ 
ness of that saloon, my church, a small one, had constantly to take 
up money to buy shoes and to buy groceries for the people living 
around there, and that from a humane standpoint it ought not to 
be relicensed. I said that my whole church was against it. I carried 
down my membership roll of more than 200 members, and they said 
they would do according to the law. One member of the excise 
board was satisfied. I said, “By this law, there are no grounds on 
which this saloon can be relicensed for wholesale or retail business.” 
That was because I had one of the regulations in my hand, saying 
that no saloon could be licensed in a block where there was less than 
50 per cent of the houses were business houses. 

The Chairman. Do you live near your church ? Is your house 
next to the church ? 

Mr. Randall. No, sir; my house is on O Street and my church 
on M, in that same vicinity. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


233 


The Chairman. Who owns the saloon ? 

Mr. Randall. A Mr. Donohue. 

The Chairman. Do you remember his initials ? 

Mr. Randall. I think his name is John. 

The Chairman. Did he have a lawyer? 

Mr. Randall. He had a lawyer. The lawyer laughed at me and 
said that I just came down there to make the regular temperance 

The Chairman. Who was the lawyer? 

Mr. Randall. I do not know his name, sir. 

Senator Jones. As I understand it, the grounds of your protest 
were, first that there was a schoolhouse to be erected across the street 
within 400 feet from the saloon ? 

Mr. Randall. Right opposite, in the next block. 

Senator Jones. And you called that to the attention of the board? 

Mr. Randall. I did, sir. 

Senator Jones. And, second, that it was in a residence section 
where less than 50 per cent was occupied for business purposes ? 

Mr. Randall. Yes, sir; and I wrote a letter to the president of the 
board of education, Mr. Blair, and I would be very glad to give it to 
this committee. 

Senator Jones. He protested against the granting of the license? 

Mr. Randall. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. On what grounds ? 

Mr. Randall. Because of the school s location. 

Senator Jones. You have the letter with you, you say? 

Mr. Randall. I thought I had it in my pocket. I have it in my 
files. 

Senator Jones. Will you bring that letter here to be put into the 
record ? 

Mr. Randall. I shall be glad to do it, sir. 

[The letter referred to is here printed in full as follows]: 

[Copy.] 

117 O Street NW., 
Washington, D. C., September 17, 1914. 

Dear Sir: Realizing that the spiritual, moral, physical, and economic development 
of any people is largely dependent on the environments of the community in which 
they reside, and that one of the greatest reflex forces to the progress of the American 
people is the dispensing, especially in residential sections, of the various forms of 
intoxicating liquors, I most earnestly request, as pastor of the People’s Congregational 
Church and a resident of this section, that the machinery of your noble organization 
be put into operation with a view to defeating, if possible, an application for whole¬ 
sale and barroom licences made by John O’Donoghue, now conducting a saloon at 
1400 First Street NW., and who has indicated, by public notices, a desire to continue 
in business at that place. 

This nefarious establishment, aside from being objectionable to the Christian resi¬ 
dents of this neighborhood, is exceedingly undesirable because of its proximity to 
the O Street Vocational School, while directly across the street is the tract of land 
purchased by the District of Columbia upon which to erect the new M Street High 
School. 

The establishment in question has entrances on First Street and on O Street, both 
of which streets are traversed daily by many children, and during the school session 
hundreds of boys and girls and youths and young ladies wend their way to and from 
either the Armstrong Manual Training School, the Central High School, the Slater 
School, the Langston School, the O Street Vocational School, or the Twining School; 
and the bringing of these tender minds into close contact with men and, sad to say, 
sometimes women, who, under the stimulus of intoxicating beverages secured at the 
near-by saloon, delight in conducting themselves in the basest ways their minds can 
conceive, can not help but afford undesirable examples for those for whom the public- 
school system and the Sunday schools are laboring so energetically, while the ribald 


234 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


conversations and profane language indulged in by these intoxicated and semi-intoxi- 
cated individuals are a disgrace to the community. 

Thanking you in advance for any assistance you may be able to render in this 
matter, and trusting that such action as you may see fit to take will be expedited, 
I am, 

Sincerely, yours, 

President Board of Education, 

Thirteenth and K Streets NW ., Washington, D. C. 

Similar letters to Mr. Andrew Wilson, president Antisaloon League of District of 
Columbia, Columbian Building, 416 Fifth Street NW., Washington, D. C.; Rev. W. 
D. Jarvis, president Baptist Ministers’ Union, T, between Fourteenth and Fifteenth 
Streets NW., Washington, D. C.; secretary Young Men’s Christian Association, 
Twelfth, between S and T Streets NW., Washington, D. C.; president Colored Y. 
W. C. A., T, between Fourth and Fifth Streets N. W., Washington, D. C. 

Senator Jones. You wrote it to the board? 

Mr. Randall. Yes, sir; and handed one to Mr. Sheehy, and I think 
it gave the names of property owners and other residents protesting 
against the saloon. 

The Chairman. Within that saloon and around it you say arrests 
have been made ? 

Mr. Randall. Before the relicensing of it, it was really nefarious. 

The Chairman. How about since that time ? 

Mr. Randall. They sell in sealed packages, and I have constantly, 
in sweeping my sidewalk, to sweep off flasks where the contents have 
been drank. 

Senator Jones. This is a wholesale place, too ? 

The Chairman. Selling less than 5 gallons ? 

Mr. Randall. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have to sweep these flasks away? 

Mr. Randall. Yes, sir; broken and whole. 

The Chairman. Have you seen any other evidences of drunken¬ 
ness along there since November? 

Mr. Randall. I have not seen any person drunk since that time, 
but we have heard the loud, boisterous talk, and the congregation. 
I have come across groups of young men drinking in front of my house. 

The Chairman. Since November ? 

Mr. Randall. Since that time; yes. 

The Chairman. And does your church still have to put up for 
people who have been driven to want by this saloon ? 

Mr. Randall. Yes, sir. I would like, Senator, to tell my ex¬ 
periences as a chaplain of the District charities. 

The Chairman. About things happening since November? 

Mr. Randall. Yes, sir; helping these helpless ones. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Randall. In Six-and-a-half Street, in the alley right back 
of my church, Goat Alley, and so forth, I am constantly called in 
to serve those families who are ruined and made a wreck of through 
whisky drinking, and I am even sent out to the Tuberculosis Hospital 
to serve- 

The Chairman. Do you know that they got their whisky at this 
place ? 

Mr. Randall. I do not know; but they are whisky cases, where 
they are just made human wrecks through the drinking of it. 

Senator Jones. We know all about the effects. 




EXCISE BOAED OF THE DISTKICT OF COLUMBIA. 235 

Senator Thompson. Have you seen any young men going in and out 
of this place since November? 

Mr. Hand all. Yes, sir; constantly. 

Senator Thompson. Any boys? 

Mr. Randall. Women and young men. I do not see any what we 
call minors. 

Senator Thompson. Colored and white, both ? 

Mr. Randall. No; no white men. This saloon is largely patron¬ 
ized by colored people. 

Senator Thompson. You have seen colored women going in and 
out of there ? 

Mr. Randall. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Do you know the characters of any of those 
whom you have seen going into and out of that place ? 

Mr. Randall. Only on general principles. I have seen right oppo¬ 
site there, at the police box, young men in their teens arrested, largely 
through the use of liquor sold in that saloon, I would judge. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

(At 6.10 o’clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, 
Friday, February 26, 1915, at 10.30 o’clock a. m.) 


THIRD DAY. 


FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1915. 

Special Committee 

United States Senate, 

Washington , D. C. 

The special committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 
o'clock a. m., at the room of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the 
Senate, in the Capitol. 

Present: Senators Sheppard (chairman), Thompson, Jones, and 
Dillingham. 

TESTIMONY OF CAPTAIN HENRY SCHNEIDER. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. State your official position. 

Mr. Schneider. I am a captain of the Metropolitan police, in charge 
of the seventh precinct. 

The Chairman. How long have you been a resident of the District ? 

Mr. Schneider. About 25 years. 

The Chairman. What was your State, originally? 

Mr. Schneider. New York. 

The Chairman. Did you have opportunity to know about the 
granting of a license to Mr. Killeen ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you make the measurements ? 

Mr. Schneider. Not personally, in 1914, but my sergeants did; 
and I based my official report on the measurements made by the 
sergeants. 

The Chairman. Please state what that report was. 

Mr. Schneider. John Killeen, or John F. Killeen, located 362 feet 
from the Dumbarton M. E. Church. All the provisions of the excise 
law have been complied with in every instance, except that he was 
within 362 feet, according to my measurement, of the M. E. Dum¬ 
barton Church. 

The Chairman. What system of measurement did you adopt ? 

Mr. Schneider. The nearest course of travel. 

The Chairman. That is in a straight line from entrance to entrance ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. Or did you make any turns ? 

Mr. Schneider. You are compelled to make a turn by turning into 
Dumbarton Avenue. 

The Chairman. How far from the entrance would you go before 
you would turn ? 

Mr. Schneider. From the center of the sidewalk. 

The Chairman. You went to the center of the sidewalk? 


236 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 237 

Mr. Schneider. Yes; to the doorsteps of the entrance to the 
church. 

The Chairman. Did you go to the center of the sidewalk in front 
of the steps of the church before you turned ? 

Mr. Schneider. No. 

The Chairman. Or did the steps run out to the center ? 

Mr. Schneider. The steps ran out to the sidewalk. 

The Chairman. Did they run to the center of the sidewalk or 
across the sidewalk ? 

Mr. Schneider. They run to the edge of the sidewalk. The en¬ 
trance to the church proper would be some feet back. The church 
sets back off the building line, but I consider that the church premises 
commence at the building line. 

The Chairman. In leaving the saloon entrance, you went to the 
center of the sidewalk? 

Mr. Schneider. Practically, yes. 

The Chairman. There were two other applicants for that same 
license, were there not, or two other applicants in that immediate 
vicinity ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. Lipnick and Cole ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. Were they in the same block with Mr. Killeen? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. Was Lipnick within the 400-foot limit? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. What was his distance ? 

Mr. Schneider. Lipnick's distance was 328 feet. 

The Chairman. Measured in the same way that you measured 
Killeen's ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. What distance was Cole from the church? 

Mr. Schneider. I have not got the exact number of feet, but it 
was quite a number over 400 feet. 

The Chairman. You are familiar with the situation ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. And you know that to be the fact? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. I measured it myself years ago, for several 
years. 

The Chairman. Did you know anything against Cole and the way 
in which he managed the place? Was there any complaint or pro¬ 
test against him ? 

Mr. Schneider. Absolutely none. 

The Chairman. Do you know why he was rejected and this other 
man accepted? 

Mr. Schneider. I do not. 

The Chairman. Mr. Killeen was given the license? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. These measurements were made by Sergt. 
J. M. Watch. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about the bar operated by 
Joseph Schladt ? 

Mr. Schneider. I do. 

The Chairman. Where is he located? 

Mr. Schneider. At 1236 and 1238 Wisconsin Avenue. 

The Chairman. He is running a supposed hotel there, is he not ? 


238 


EXCISE BOAED OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. What is the name of the place ? 

Mr. Schneider. The West Washington Hotel. 

The Chairman. Do you know how many rooms there are in that 
place ? 

Mr. Schneider. I made an inspection of those premises four years 
ago—I am not positive whether three or four years ago—and at that 
time I counted 22 rooms. That is exclusive of the rooms that were 
occupied by him and his family. He then made alterations and cut 
some of the rooms up into 2 rooms, and brought the number of rooms 
up to 26. Originally he had only 22. 

The Chairman. I see here that he has a hotel license. 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. And he is now operating under a hotel license, and 
the official record or the license record shows that he has 30 rooms at 
this time ? 

Mr. Schneider. I have not made an inspection in the last three 
years. I had no occasion to do it. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about the character of the 
place ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. Will you state what it is ? 

Mr. Schneider. The character of it is bad. 

The Chairman. In what respect ? State fully what you know 
about that place? 

Mr. Schneider. I have been acquainted with Joe- Schladt’s place 
for approximately 14 years. I have had Schladt in court a number 
of times for violating the Sunday law, selling liquor on Sundays. 

The Chairman. Has he ever been convicted? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. I have raided poker games in that place. 
May I read the record as I know it to be of my own personal knowledge ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Schneider. I made notes of it. 

The Chairman. Have you the dates also? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. Go ahead. 

Mr. Schneider [reading]. August 25, 1905, Sunday bar, dismissed; 
November 25,1905, Sunday bar, $100 fine, paid; October 23,1907, un¬ 
licensed bar, fine $800, but granted a new trial and finally case was 
nol-prossed; August 16, 1907, Sunday bar, $200 fine, paid; Septem¬ 
ber 9, 1908, violating police regulations. I can not recall just what 
that was, but it was nol-prossed. November 27, 1908, permitting 
gaming, dismissed. That is the poker game that I referred to. The 
man who was running the game assumed all the responsibility, 
although Mr. Schladt was within 15 feet of where the game was being 
played. The place also has a reputation of being a bawdy house. 

The Chairman. It has that reputation now ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. As early as 1906 I made the following report 
[reading]: 

In view of the fact that this applicant made a solemn promise to the excise board on 
October 13, 1906, not to sell on Sundays, in violation of law, and the further fact that 
on the Sunday following and every Sunday since he has admitted a large number of 
well-known local characters into his place, some of whom come out very much under 
the influence of liquor, and who were observed passing bottles that apparently con¬ 
tained liquor to friends on the street, I recommend that the license be not granted. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 239 

; The Chairman. That was in 1906 ? 

? Mr. Schneider. As early as 1906. I have opposed the granting of 
that license for a number of years, except last year. 

The Chairman. Did you oppose it before the present excise board 
in 1913? 

Mr. Schneider. I opposed it in 1913 and appeared before the ex¬ 
cise board with a number of witnesses. 

The Chairman. You gave them the record of the place? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. And told them what you knew about it ? 

Mr. Schneider. I did. 

The Chairman. In 1913 had you seen evidences of the same 
character of the place ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. Have you seen anything in 1914 that would lead 
you to think that the house was still a disreputable place ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. What did you see? 

Mr. Schneider. I have seen women in there. 

The Chairman. Bad women? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. You saw~ them in 1913 also? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. And you told the board so ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. What other people appeared against Mr. Schladt 
besides the police officers ? 

Mr. Schneider. There were several citizens. I can not recall 
their names, but quite a few of them. 

The Chairman. What have you noticed regarding the place this 
year? 

Mr. Schneider. Nothing, except that I still see women going in 
and out. 

The Chairman. Women of bad character? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. White or colored? 

Mr. Schneider. White. 

The Chairman. All of them white? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did the board give any reason why it would 
license a place of that character? 

Mr. Schneider. Absolutely none. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any reason that prompted them 
to grant a man of that character a license to run a saloon ? 

Mr. Schneider. No, I can not say. I will state that for a number 
of years Mr. Schladt was running his bar from year to year and his 
license would be granted on the latter part of the license year. He 
would be permitted to run, say, from five months to a year without 
a license, and the license would be granted, finally, in the latter 
part of the license year. 

The Chairman. That was before the present board went in, was 
it not ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 


240 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether anybody appeared in behalf 
of this license besides the applicant himself ? 

Mr. Schneider. He was represented by an attorney. 

The Chairman. Who was his attorney ? 

Mr. Schneider. Mr. Julius Peyser was his attorney in 1913. 

Senator Jones. Do you know of any of the citizens over there who 
urged the granting of this license ? 

Mr. Schneider. No. 

The Chairman. You do not know of any petition that was pre¬ 
sented by citizens that the license be granted ? 

Mr. Schneider. No. In fact, there was none. The majority of good 
citizens in that part of the city were opposed to the granting of that 
license. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any sums of money put up by 
saloon keepers to get licenses ? 

Mr. Schneider. I do not. 

The Chairman. Did you hear anything about that? 

Mr. Schneider. No. I understand there was a case where a num¬ 
ber of them, in order to overcome a certain objectionable feature, or 
rather to overcome a provision in the law, expended some money in 
order to convert certain dwellings into stables or garages. I under¬ 
stand that has been done, but whether or not that is true, I do not 
know. I have been told so. However, the dwelling houses in Dyers 
Alley, for instance, were changed into garages in order to comply 
with the law. 

The Chairman. In order to make it a business section? 

Mr. Schneider. In order to wipe out an inhabited alley. 

The Chairman. In order to wipe out an objectionable feature? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. What alley ? 

Mr. Schneider. The alley known as Dyers Alley between Thirty- 
third and Thirty-fourth, M Street and the canal. 

Senator Jones. Do you know what the condition of that alley 
is now? 

Mr. Schneider. It is not occupied. There are no houses occupied 
in the alley at all. 

Senator Jones. So it continues to be an uninhabited alley? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes; ever since. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about Sullivan’s place on 
Thirty-fifth Street ? 

Mr. Schneider. I do know that there were a number of changes 
made there—dwellings were converted into business property— in 
order to meet with the requirements of the law. 

The Chairman. In other words, it was at first a residence block ? 

Mr. Schneider. It was. 

The Chairman. Do you know who converted the residences into 
business property ? 

Mr. Schneider. I understand, and according to the building per¬ 
mit records, Mr. Sullivan, the applicant, converted this residence 
property into business property. 

The Chairman. What kind of business ? 

Mr. Schneider. Stores. 

The Chairman. He converted them into stores ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


241 


The Chairman. And rented them ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes; and they are occupied now as such. 

Senator Jones. Was that done before the license was applied for? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Did Mr. Sullivan seem to own all of that land ? 

Mr. Schneider. He owned a considerable portion of it, and he 
acquired some of it by purchase. 

Senator Jones. The rest of the block—that is, the other sides of the 
block—are occupied in what way ? 

Mr. Schneider. Mostly by dwelling houses. 

Senator Jones. And he simply converted the side on which the 
saloon is into business houses so as to make that part of it 50 per 
cent business frontage ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

Senator Jones. And all the rest of the block is residential? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. Not all the rest, but practically all. I would 
say 75 per cent of it. 

Senator Jones. And the other blocks are what? 

Mr. Schneider. They are all residential. 

The Chairman. Is there a university hospital near there ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes; the university hospital, I would say, is within 
325 feet or 330 feet of this barroom. 

The Chairman. Of Sullivan’s barroom ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Do you know whether these things were called to 
the attention of the board before the license was granted ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. It was called to their attention? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. By you ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. This university hospital is used as a school, is it 
not? Classes are heard there? 

Mr. Schneider. They have a training school for nurses there, but 
that fact was not reported in my report. 

The Chairman. You reported to the board that this side of the 
block had been a residence section and had been converted by this 
man into a business section? 

Mr. Schneider. No; I did not report that, but the attention of the 
board was called to the fact that these changes had been made, and I 
know of my own personal knowledge that the board visited this 
section and looked it over. 

The Chairman. Were these changes made last year or in 1913? 

Mr. Schneider. They were made in 1913. 

The Chairman. Were those stores occupied at the time the license 
was granted? 

Mr. Schneider. Not all of them. 

The Chairman. Were enough of them occupied to make it more 
than 50 per cent business? 

Mr. Schneider. No. 

The Chairman. They were not ? 

Mr. Schneider. No. 

The Chairman. Who else made inspections of that Schladt place ? 
Who was your man ? 


242 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Schneider. Sergeant Hess is one of them—W. P. Hess. He 
is here. 

The Chairman. Were similar changes made by Carr and Wardell 
in the block in which they live, from residence property to business 
property ? 

Mr. Schneider. The conditions of Carr and Warded are somewhat 
different. The conditions are different in that block. On the side 
of M Street where Carr and Warded are located there are no houses. 
The fronts of those places look upon the open canal. There are . 
very few houses in the entire block. There was one business place 
erected, however, north of this place; but conditions there would be 
entirely different from what they would be in the Sullivan case. 

The Chairman. You say this block fronts on the canal? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. There were not more than four or five houses on 
the side fronting the canal ? 

Mr. Schneider. None on the side where the canal is, and on the 
north side there are not more than four or five houses. 

The Chairman. Were they business houses or residences? 

Mr. Schneider. Some were business and some were residences. 

The Chairman. What was the proportion of business houses to 
residence houses, if you can remember; about half and half? 

Mr. Schneider. No; more. 

The Chairman. More business ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is ad. We are much obliged to you. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM P. HESS. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your official position ? 

Mr. Hess. Sergeant of the Metropolitan police, connected with the 
seventh precinct. 

The Chairman. Are you under Capt. Schneider ? 

Mr. Hess. Yes. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in that precinct? 

Mr. Hess. A little better than 20 years. 

The Chairman. You have been on the force that long? 

Mr. Hess. Yes; about 20^ years, altogether. 

The Chairman. Have you had occasion to be familiar with the con¬ 
ditions in the West Washington Hotel and the bar operated there? 

Mr. Hess. Yes; right smart. 

The Chairman. How often have you had opportunity to investi¬ 
gate that place ? 

Mr. Hess. I have passed by there on several occasions, and I have 
heard a number of reports about the place and have gone in there and 
investigated it, and on several occasions I have seen women in there; 
but at the time I was in there I could not say that I saw them doing 
anything out of the way. 

The Chairman. Were they women of disreputable character? 

Mr. Hess. I had been told that. I do not know that of my own 
knowledge. 

The Chairman. What is the reputation of that place ? 

Mr. Hess. Bad. 

The Chairman. That is, in what respect ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


243 


Mr. Hess. In the way of having women go there and drink, and for 
other purposes. 

The Chairman. Is this supposed to be a low resort for men and 
women—a bawdy house ? 

Mr. Hess. Yes; to some extent. That is the reputation. As I 
S PY I have been in there on several occasions and I have seen women 
sitting around there, but I have never seen anything, of my own 
personal knowledge, out of the way. 

The Chairman. Did you testify before the excise board at any time 
as to what you had seen in there or as to the character of the place ? 

Mr. Hess. Yes; prior to the granting of the license in 1913 I was a 
witness before the excise board. 

The Chairman. What did you say to the excise board ? 

Mr. Hess. They asked me if I had seen people going in and out of 
the place and I stated about what I have said here. 

The Chairman. Men and women? 

Mr. Hess. Yes. 

The Chairman. In and out of the saloon? 

Mr. Hess. In and out of the side entrance to the upstairs portion; 
and the place at that time was a hotel, which of course permitted 
them to pass in and out. 

Senator Jones. It is a hotel with less than 50 rooms ? 

# Mr. Hess. I do not know the number of rooms. I never had occa¬ 
sion to count them. 

The Chairman. The license shows that it is a hotel of less than 30 
rooms. I have a statement here from Mr. Coombs, the license clerk 
of the District, showing this hotel has less than 30 rooms. 

That is all. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JAMES T. NEWKIRK. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your official position? 

Mr. Newkirk. I am a member of the Metropolitan police force 
attached to No. 6 precinct. 

The Chairman. How long have you been on the force ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Twenty-four and one-half years. 

The Chairman. Is the Philadelphia House in your precinct ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes. 

The Chairman. What do you know about that place ? 

Mr. Newkirk. I have been knowing of the Philadelphia House ever 
since I have been on the force. The last three years it has been 
extremely bad, by the number of men and women frequenting the 
place, of bad reputation; women known as prostitutes and street walkers 
and solicitors. They go into the place as high as a dozen times in 
one night with different men. 

The Chairman. Are there rooms there ? 

Mr. Newkirk. No; no rooms. They go to this summer garden. 
There is a piano and a man plays there, and the women dance and 
expose their limbs to their knees, and there are as high as 75 to 80 
men and women in this small summer garden at one time, sitting 
around tables drinking, and some of them eating. 

The Chairman. The place still has that character ? 

84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3-17 


244 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Newkirk. It still has that character. 

The Chairman. Did you testify before the excise board about these 
facts ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes. 

The Chairman. Last November ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you also testify the year before, in 1913 ? 

Mr. Newkirk. I do not think I did; no, sir. 

Senator Jones. You are acquainted with what used to be the 
Hurdle Place, across the street from there ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes; the Chicago Hotel. 

Senator Jones. 1 do not know the name of the hotel. 

Mr. Newkirk. He just moved from 329 to 345. 

Senator Jones. And then he was denied a license ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Do you know anything about the character of his 
place ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Well, at the Chicago Hotel I did not observe any¬ 
thing wrong. He has only been there about a year, and to my 
knowledge he has tried to conduct the place straight, as near as 
possible. 

Senator Jones. Can you tell anything else about the conduct of 
this Philadelphia House ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Oh, a number of arrests are made there of people 
who frequent that place; as high as six or seven or eight or nine in 
one load, particularly on Saturday night at 12 o’clock when the 
place is let out. A couple of weeks before the end of November last 
I got nine in one load, six from the Philadelphia House, including 
one white man, whom I took out of the place. The men and women 
were charged with intoxication, with fighting, and using bad language; 
taking the name of God in vain. 

Senator Jones. It is simply a place largely of carousal? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes. 

Senator Jones. And debauchery ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes; common prostitutes, crapshooters, and thieves 
frequent it. 

Senator Jones. Carrying on all the time? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes; carrying on that way all the time. The peo¬ 
ple that frequent that place have that reputation. 

Senator Jones. Those things were brought to the attention of the 
excise board ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes. The excise board were there and saw for 
themselves the carryings on. 

The Chairman. Were those arrests kept up through this year? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes; I made four there last night, in that vicinity, 
right on that corner. They had frequented that place and other 
saloons in the near vicinity. 

Senator Jones. Most of the patrons of this place are colored ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes. Once in a while a drunken white man or a 
drunken white woman will drift in there not knowing where they are 
going. The neighborhood is a slum neighborhood, and most of the 
people there are very low, common white people, including the col¬ 
ored, who are bad, as well as the white people that frequent these 
places; and I think they are really worse than the colored people. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


245 


Senator Jones. Do you know if that place could be very much 
worse than it is, or carried on in a much more disreputable way than 
it is. 

Mr. Newkirk. No; I do not think it possibly could, because even 
the proprietor himself had an altercation with a woman, say three 
or four nights ago, and she tried to cut his throat and almost cut his 
jugular vein off, and she was known as his woman—what you might 
call a prostitute. Jealousy caused the altercation of words, and the 
words caused this serious assault. I believe it took five or six stitches 
to sew up the wound. 

The Chairman. It took five or six stitches in his throat? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes; in the side of his face, here. 

Senator Jones. Do you know anything of the general character of 
the man who runs the place, besides knowing the character of the 
place he runs ? 

Mr. Newkirk. No. 

The Chairman. What is his name? 

Mr. Newkirk. Edelin. He is a single man. 

The Chairman. How long has he been operating there? 

Mr. Newkirk. For eight or nine years. His sister, Mrs. Carroll, 
died there a few years ago, and she left the business to him. 

Senator Jones. He is a white man? 

Mr. Newkirk. He is a colored man. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else that you can tell us about 
the place ? 

Mr. Newkirk. No; I think that is sufficient. 

The Chairman. I think so, too. The excise board, however, did 
not seem to think so. 

Mr. Newkirk. Some of them might like the hootchy-kootchy 
dance or the tango. 

The Chairman. Did you hear the excise board make any remark 
about the place after they came out of the place ? 

Mr. Newkirk. No, not to me; but I heard they did make a remark. 
I heard they made a remark to Mr. Shoemaker that they never knew 
such a place as that existed in the city of Washington, and that it 
had no show of ever getting a license there. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any other place in that vicinity in 
your precinct that is of a bad character? 

Mr. Newkirk. There is a saloon at 115 Four-and-a-half Street, 
just around the corner, a yet-ko-min joint, a Chinese restaurant, where 
That class of people visit up to 3 o’clock in the morning—a pig-foot 
shop, or a chittlings house, with old Virginia cornbread on the side. 
It is conducted in just that way. That class visits that place at all 
times of the night. The saloon keeps open until 1 o’clock at night, 
and the frequenters of this place, of course, go to the saloon back and 
forth, and a number of arrests are made there. There is hardly a 
Saturday night goes by that there are not as high as six or seven. 
During the week there are three or four or five. 

The Chairman. Whose place is that ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Jeremiah O’Connor’s. 

The Chairman. Were any protests made against his license in 
November? 

Mr. Newkirk. No. 


246 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. Were there any made against the Philadelphia 
House ? 

Mr. Newkirk. I do not think there were. I do not think there 
were any protests made against any of the restaurants and the saloons 
in that slum neighborhood. 

The Chairman. Did not the Gospel Mission protest? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes; but I mean in regard to the police department— 
to us. 

The Chairman. I do not mean you. 

Mr. Newkirk. Oh, yes; the Gospel Mission did vigorously protest. 

The Chairman. Against the Philadelphia House ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes; and against the saloon at 115 Four-and-a-half 
Street. 

The Chairman. You do not consider it the business of the police 
to make protests unless you are called on to testify? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes. I never go in one of these places unless on 
official business or with an officer. 

The Chairman. You do not make these protests of your own 
motion, against the renewal of licenses ? 

Mr. Newkirk. No; only when called on. I was subpoenaed before 
the board as I was subpoenaed here. 

The Chairman. There must have been a protest of some kind at 
that hearing. 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes; but only by the Gospel Mission on John 
Marshall Place. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any other place ? 

Mr. Newkirk. No. I know all these places. If you would just 
name some of them, I might. 

The Chairman. What about the alley on the north side of Pennsyl¬ 
vania Avenue ? 

Mr. Newkirk. That is Jackson Hall Alley. 

The Chairman. Tell us about that. 

Mr. Newkirk. It is from Third Street to Four-and-a-half Street, 
Pennsylvania Avenue to C Street. It is a reservation alley, and 
there are 30 houses in that alley, mostly occupied by colored people 
and Greeks, pushcart venders, candy makers, celery sellers, and 
colored people; some of them of the working class and others not so 
good. 

The Chairman. Is there a saloon within 300 feet of that alley ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Oh, yes. 

The Chairman. Is the Philadelphia House within 300 feet of that ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes; it is exactly across the street. 

The Chairman. What is the character of the conditions in that 
alley ? 

Mr. Newkirk. The conditions in that alley at the present time are 
not very bad, it might be on account of the reduction in the number 
of licenses there; but they are going in and coming out at all tidies of 
the night. The police record does not show much disorder. 

The Chairman. You say they are going in and coming out at all 
times of the night ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes. 

The Chairman. You mean men and women? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes; some of the women who live in that alley that 
frequent those yet-ko-min joints, Chinese restaurants, and cheap 
restaurants run by Greeks. 


EXCISE BOARD 0„F THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 247 

The Chairman. Would you say that it is a place of bad character? 

Mr. Newkirk. I would call it a slum character. 

The Chairman. Are there any other slum alleys in your precinct ? 

Mr. Newkirk. That is about the only alley that is in that neigh¬ 
borhood, where any of those people live. I have not done duty back 
in some of the other alleys, but there is an alley at First Street and 
Pennsylvania Avenue, called Purdy’s Court, and there are a number 
of Italians there. For this last year they have been behaving them¬ 
selves very nicely. 

Mr. O'Connor. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness 
some questions. 

Senator Jones. We have a rule of this committee that any ques¬ 
tions that outsiders desire to ask shall be placed in writing and pre¬ 
sented to the chairman. 

The Chairman. We will put you on the stand and let you make your 
statement. 

Mr. O’Connor. Will you not permit me the privilege that I am 
entitled to ? 

The Chairman. We will put you on the stand. 

Mr. O’Connor. I should like to ask him a question. 

Senator Dillingham. Reduce it to writing. 

Mr. O’Connor. Well, that will take some time. 

The Chairman. Come over here by me and tell me what you want 
to ask him. Just sit right over here. 

Mr. O’Connor. I think I might be granted the privilege, Senator, 
that I am entitled to. 

Senator Jones. If we allowed everybody who wanted to, to ask 
questions, there would be no end to it. The thing would go on forever. 

(After informal conversation between Mr. O’Connor and the mem¬ 
bers of the committee, Mr. O’Connor proceeded to state in alow tone 
to the chairman questions which he desired to be asked of the wit¬ 
ness, each of which questions was then asked by the chairman and 
answered as follows:) 

The Chairman. Did you make any arrests at O’Connor’s place in 
the last two years ? 

Mr. Newkirk. I would have made arrests there, but- 

The Chairman. What is that ? 

Mr. Newkirk. I would have made many arrests there, but I was 
not allowed to. Mr. O’Connor had made certain threats that if I 
went in there I would get throwed out. 

Mr. O’Connor. I never made such a threat. 

Senator Jones. Does that prevent police officers from going in 
there ? 

Mr. Newkirk. No; but I was instructed not to. I used to go into 
that place. 

Senator Jones. Who instructed you not to ? 

Mr. Newkirk. My lieutenant. He instructed me not to go in 
there unless I was on official duty, so that since that time I never 
went in any of the saloons without going there on duty. 

Senator Jones. Would it not be official duty to go in these saloons 
to see how they are being conducted? 

Mr. Newkirk. I think it would, absolutely. I always did it, for years. 

Senator Jones. Who was that that gave you these instructions ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Lieut. Duvall. 

The Chairman. Were you put off that beat? 



248 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICJ OE COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Newkirk. No, sir; I was transferred just on the other side of 
the street. 

The Chairman. Where does that beat end ? 

Mr. Newkirk. At Four-and-a-half Street—Fourth Street. 

The Chairman. Where is your present beat ? 

Mr. Newkirk. From Four-and-a-half to Sixth. 

The Chairman. You were not transferred off that beat? 

Mr. Newkirk. I was transferred off the beat; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Why were you transferred ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Mr. O’Connor had went to headquarters, and he 
made a false statement that I had been borrowing money off of Mr. 
Shea, a saloon keeper. I was tried on those charges and proved 
myself clear, which I told the major that I didn’t owe Mr. Shea any¬ 
thing, never borrowed from him only one time, and that was when I 
had a death in the family, and I had to have money, and Mr. Shea 
testified to the same thing; and I paid him back. Mr. Shea testified 
to the same thing, which was perfectly right. Capt. Byrnes said, 
“You had better go on the other beat for a while.” Since then my 
beat has been just as much on Mr. O’Connor’s part of the territory as 
it ever was. I go back and forth. I often take from Third to Seventh 
Streets—that is, including between Third and Four-and-a-half 
Streets—and it is hardly a week that I do not cover the whole line 
there, more or less. 

The Chairman. Mr. O’Connor, do you want to take the stand ? 

Mr. O’Connor. I would like to ask him some more questions. 

The Chairman (after further suggestion by Mr. O’Connor). Did 
you arrest the superintendent of the Gospel Mission ? 

Mr. Newkirk. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Explain that. 

Mr. Newkirk. I arrested him on a number of complaints from 
Mr. Kline. 

Mr. Matthew O’Brien. That case is still pending, and I am coun¬ 
sel for that man, and I object to that case being tried here. 

Mr. Neavkirk. He went to the station house just the same as any¬ 
body else would go. 

The Chairman. That will do. Stand aside. 

All the witnesses who have been examined may now be excused. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JEREMIAH O’CONNOR. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Will you state your full name ? 

Mr. O’Connor. Jeremiah O’Connor. 

The Chairman. What is your address ? 

Mr. O’Connor. 115 Four-and-a-half Street NW. 

The Chairman. Are you running a saloon there ? 

Mr. O’Connor. Yes. 

The Chairman. Now, state about the manner in which your saloon 
is conducted ? 

Mr. O’Connor. It is conducted in an orderly manner, according to 
the law, for the past 10 years, while I have been there. I have never 
been in the police court; never have been charged with any crime 
or any evasion of the law. 


EXCISE BOARD OE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


249 


The Chairman. Do any Chinamen frequent your place? 

Mr. O’Connor. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there a Chinese district adjacent? 

Mr. O’Connor. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Is it near you? 

Mr. O Connor. The Chinese district is on Pennsylvania Avenue. 

The Chairman. What is the nearest Chinese place to you? 

Mr. O’Connor. There are no Chinamen living in that neighbor¬ 
hood. 

The Chairman. Where are the nearest Chinese to you? 

Mr. O’Connor. Around the corner, on Pennsylvania Avenue. As 
a rule, Chinamen do not visit saloons. 

The Chairman. Was there any protest against the renewal of 
your license last November? 

Mr. O’Connor. No, sir, never a protest; except Mr. Kline, of the 
Gospel Mission, made some protest that he could not substantiate. 

Senator Jones. Was not that a protest? 

Mr. O’Connor. It is a general protest, from his standpoint; what 
he has, as a rule, against all saloons. He. had no material fact, that 
I could see, submitted to the board. 

The Chairman. That is sufficient. 

Mr. O’Connor. Now, I want to say something else. 

Senator Jones. No; we do not care to go into that other matter. 

Mr. O’Connor. Gentlemen, I do not feH that I got a square deal 
in this matter, because I was not permitted to cross-question the 
witness. 

The Chairman. You will be permitted to ask any questions you 
want to. Submit them to me in writing. 

Mr. O’Connor. I do not think it is fair. I think it is discrimi¬ 
natory. 

The Chairman. You stand aside. 

Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir; I will. It is all a one-sided affair, gentle¬ 
men, to my mind. I do not think it is fair, such treatment; to put 
him on the stand and say that he will not be permitted to be ques¬ 
tioned. 

Senator Jones. Mr. Chairman, I move that the chairman request 
the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate to detail an official to this room 
to preserve order. 

The Chairman. Very well. Is that satisfactory to the committee ? 

Senator Dillingham. Yes. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF ME. PRESTON E. MILLER. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. State your full name. 

Mr. Miller. Preston E. Miller. 

The Chairman. Are you one of the Miller Pros., conducting a pvace 
at No. 1340 E Street? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you conducted a place there 

Mr. Miller. Do you mean how long has it been in my name and 
my brother’s ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 


250 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Miller. Since my father’s death; that is, two years last Sep¬ 
tember. 

The Chairman. Did you have some trouble getting a renewal of 
your license last November? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir; the license was refused last November 1. 

The Chairman. Your license was refused? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. On what grounds ? 

Mr. Miller. I do not know. 

Senator Dillingham. Can you not speak a little louder? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. There were five saloons in the block and 
the law only allowed three, I think, and two had to be refused. 

The Chairman. What suggestion came to you as to how you could 
get a license ? 

Mr. Miller. There were three remaining licenses not granted, and 
we made application, after our license was refused, for a license at 
501 Fourteenth Street NW. 

The Chairman. Who suggested that to you, to apply for a license 
on Fourteenth Street ? 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Sullivan. 

The Chairman. Who is Mr. Sullivan? 

Mr. Miller. He represents the Heurich Brewing Co. He attended 
all the hearings of the excise board. 

The Chairman. Was that after your first application had been 
declined ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did he represent you when you made application, 
while the entrance to your saloon was on E Street ? 

Mr. Miller. He did not exactly represent us. He was there in 
the interest of Mr. Heurich. 

The Chairman. In the interest of whom? 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Heurich, the owner of the property. 

The Chairman. Oh, the owner of the property? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you have a lawyer to represent you? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You say Mr. Sullivan suggested to you that you 
change your entrance from E Street to Fourteenth Street ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did he say who suggested it to him ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. He said there were three openings for a 
license, and that we had better make application as soon as possible. 

The Chairman. And change your entrance? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you change your entrance immediately, or 
before you made your application ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir; we did not change the entrance until the 
license was granted. 

The Chairman. You did not change your entrance until after 
your license was granted ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you pay out any money to get your license ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. After the license was granted how long was it 
until you had an entrance there ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 251 

Mr. Miller. We got in that afternoon, I think. 

Senator Jones. You just tore out the window and commenced 
business ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Did you not have to show, in your application for 
a license, where your entrance was ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, you have to have the plans drawn of that. 

Senator Jones. You had plans drawn, but you had no entrance? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. The room was just the same as you had been occu¬ 
pying for a saloon all the time before ? 

Mr. Miller. How is that, sir ? 

Senator Jones. The room that you have your saloon in now, under 
the new entrance, is just the same room that you had been having it 
in before ? 

Mr. Miller. The same; yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Did you not suggest to Mr. Sullivan that it was no 
use to apply for a license there in that same room again ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. Did you think that you were coming within the 
law in applying for a license in that way ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. You thought you were ? 

Mr. Miller. It would be on Fourteenth Street then, I thought; 
501 Fourteenth Street. 

Senator Jones. Your saloon would be on Fourteenth Street? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. You never considered it on Fourteenth Street 
before that ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir; the entrance was on E Street before that. 

Senator Jones. In other words, you consider the entrance to make 
the saloon ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, I think the entrance would be on the street we 
would be doing business on. 

Senator Jones. Of course, the entrance would be; but would that 
change the entire location of the saloon ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir; it would not change the location of the 
saloon. 

Senator Jones. It did not change the location at all, did it ? 

Mr. Miller. It changed- 

Senator Jones. It did not change the location at all ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir; it did not change the location of the building, 
but it changed the location of the street we were doing business on. 

Senator Jones. It did not change the location of the saloon? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir; I guess not; not of the building. 

Senator Jones. You did not pay anybody any money in connection 
with getting the license ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. Either directly or indirectly ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. Do you understand that the owner of the property 
was paying anybody? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 



252 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Jones. Of course, I am not suggesting that you paid to 
the board, but did you pay to any attorney or anybody acting 
for you ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir; we had no one representing us at all. 
Senator Jones. Mr. Sullivan was just acting as a sort of a friend? 
Mr. Miller. Well, no; he was looking out for Mr. Heurich’s 
interests, I suppose. 

Senator Jones. What is that? 

Mr. Miller. He. was looking out for Mr. Heurich’s interests, 
I suppose. 

Senator Jones. What interest did Mr. Heurich have there? 

Mr. Miller. He owned the property, I suppose. 

Senator Jones. He owned the property where you were running 
the saloon ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And he thought he could not rent it for any other 
purpose than that of a saloon? 

Mr. Miller. I suppose he could; yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Who is Mr. Heurich ? What business is he in ? 
Mr. Miller. He is in the brewery business. 

Senator Jones. He is in the brewery business ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. What rent do you pay him ? 

Mr. Miller. $450 a month. 

Senator Jones. $450 a month? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. For just the lower floor? 

Mr. Miller. Yes. 

Senator Jones. A lower room? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Did he put up the money for the license? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. He put up the money for your license, too? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And you pay $450 a month rent? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. He furnishes the room and also furnishes the 
license ? 

Mr. Miller. Oh, no. The license was a loan. 

Senator Jones. You said he put up the money for it? 

Mr. Miller. Yes; but it was a loan he made. 

Senator Jones. It was a loan? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones, tie loaned you that money? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. When is that loan to be repaid? 

Mr. Miller. It is being paid now. 

Senator Jones. I say, when is it to be repaid? 

Mr. Miller. It is being paid now. 

Senator Jones. Being paid monthly ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Have you any property aside from the interest in 
that saloon ? 

Mr. Miller. The estate has; yes, sir. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 253 

Senator Jones. What is that? 

Mr. Miller. The estate has some real estate. 

Senator Jones. The estate ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. But you have not any, personally? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. How long have you had a saloon in that place? 

Mr. Miller. My father was there since February 14, 1910. After 
his death- 

Senator Jones. How much floor space is there in that room occu¬ 
pied by the saloon ? How long and how wide is it ? 

Mr. Miller. About 30 feet, I guess, by 30-35, probably. 

Senator Jones. Is it as wide as it is long? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. That is all. 

The Chairman. Did you have any understanding with the excise 
board before you made the application for license ? 

Mr. Miller. Have an understanding? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you not consult with them about whether, if 
you changed your entrance, your license would be granted ? 

Mr. Miller. No; we made the application on the 31st day of Oc¬ 
tober, and our license was refused, and Gen. Smith said that the board 
was not in session and they could not accept the application at that 
time, so that we made the application, I think, on the 5th of Novem¬ 
ber, when the board was in session. 

The Chairman. Did you talk with Gen. Smith about it that day? 

Mr. Miller. We saw Gen. Smith and Mr. Baker when we made 
application. 

The Chairman. Did they tell you that if you changed the entrance 
around, your application would be granted ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you discuss the matter with them? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir; just merely went over and filed our applica¬ 
tion; and Gen. Smith said that the board was not in session, and they 
could not do anything until they were in session. 

Senator Jones. When the board was in session, did you have any 
talk with him about it ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir; just filed the application on the 5th of 
November. 

Senator Jones. When was it acted on ? 

Mr. Miller. We got an answer on it on the 21st of November. 

Senator Jones. On the 21st of November? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And the day you got the answer you broke out the 
window there, and made an entrance on Fourteenth Street? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In the meantime, you continued to do business 
with your entrance on the E Street side? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir; we were closed there. 

The Chairman. You were closed there? 

Mr. Miller. Closed entirely. 

Senator Jones. You had your stock still in the room, however? 



254 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT "OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Miller. Yes. 

Senator Jones. Where it had been ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did anybody offer to represent you in getting 
that license ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. You do not know whether the brewing company 
paid Mr. Sullivan anything or not? 

Mr. Miler. No; I could not say that. He is an employee over 
there, anyhow. 

Senator Jones. Of the brewing company? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is all. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF ME. EDGAE A. MILLEE. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Will you state your full name ? 

Mr. Miller. Edgar A. Miller. 

The Chairman. Are you one of the Miller Bros. ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Conducting a saloon at 1349 E Street? 

Mr. Miller. 1349 was the original address, on E Street. 

The Chairman. No. 1349 ? 

Mr. Miller. No. 1349. 

The Chairman. What is your number now ? 

Mr. Miller. No. 501 Fourteenth Street. 

The Chairman. When you applied for a license last November, it 
was declined at first, was it not ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. On the ground that there were already three 
saloons on that side of the block ? 

Mr. Miller. There were too many on that side; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long did your saloon remain closed before 
you secured a license ? 

Mr. Miller. It was closed on the 31st of October, and we reopened 
on the 21st of November. 

The Chairman. Did the board have a rule that when a saloon was 
closed after the license expired, the stock was to be removed within 
a certain time ? 

Mr. Miller. They give you 30 days to remove your stock and close 
your business up. 

The Chairman. And you got your license in 21 days? 

Mr. Miller. They give 30 days to close out the stock and the 
business, if you want to. 

The Chairman. If you had not gotten that license, you would have 
had to get out on the 1st of December ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, and gotten the stock all out. 

The Chairman. I understand you succeeded in getting your license 
in about 21 days? 

Mr. Miller. In 21 days. 

The Chairman. Did you pay any money to any one to get this? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did anybody pay any money for you to get it ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 255 

Mr. Miller. Not that I know of; no, sir. There never was any 
suggestion of any kind to me, that I know of. I don’t think anybody 
did anything about it. 

The Chairman. Did anybody offer to represent you ? 

Mr. Miller. Oh, no; no, sir. 

The Chairman. In 1913, when you got a license, did anybody 
represent you ? 

Mr. Miller. In 1913? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Miller. No; we simply made our application for renewal. 

The Chairman. You made your application for renewal, and you 
had no representative, no attorney or anybody else ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did anybody tell you if you moved your entrance 
from E Street to Fourteenth Street you could get a license? 

Mr. Miller. Nobody told us that- if we moved the entrance we 
would get a license; no, sir. 

The Chairman. What did they tell you ? 

Mr. Miller. When we were refused our license on the 31st of Octo¬ 
ber, we were told that there were 297 licenses that had been issued, 
and Mr. Sullivan had a list of all these saloons that had been granted 
their licenses, and we understood that the list of granted applications 
were 297, so.that we filed our new application for 501 Fourteenth 
Street. 

The Chairman. Who suggested that you change your entrance to 
Fourteenth Street ? 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Sullivan was there, and we talked it over. 

The Chairman. Did he say that anybody- 

Mr. Miller. He said there was probably a chance to change our 
entrance there, and get our license that way. 

The Chairman. That is all, Mr. Miller. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF LIEUT. JOHN L. SPRINKLE. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Give your full name? 

Mr. Sprinkle. John L. Sprinkle. 

The Chairman. You are a member of the Metropolitan police 
force ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. I am a member of the Metropolitan police depart¬ 
ment ; lieutenant, in charge of the first precinct. 

The Chairman. Is the Grand Hotel in your precinct? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you make an examination of the Grand Hotel 
last year, some time? 

Mr. Sprinkle. A great number of times I was in there. 

The Chairman. Have you been in there recently? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Not for a month, I don’t suppose. 

The Chairman. What is the character of that place ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. It has been heretofore very objectionable on 
account of the summer garden run in connection with it, where 
singing and dancing was permitted, dancing between men and women, 
and cabaret shows. 

The Chairman. Drinking? 



256 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Sprinkle. Drinking at tables, yes, sir; and right among these 
tables was a platform set aside for dancing purposes, where women 
would get up from the table after drinking and dance there, you 
know, to songs. 

The Chairman. What was the character of these women? 

Mr. Sprinkle. There were a great many prostitutes—streetwalkers. 
Once in a while I would see a woman whom I did not know, but I did 
know a great many. I have been in that district for a great many 
years, the red light district, and I was personally acquainted with 
nearly all the public prostitutes, or women who had been public 
prostitutes. 

The Chairman. And some of these were among those women ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Yes; the majority of the women there were in that 
class. 

The Chairman. Did you bring this matter to the attention of the 
excise board? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Yes, sir. I was acting captain at that time and 
made a report to that effect, and I testified also before the excise 
board in corroboration of my report. 

The Chairman. Was that in connection with the matter of the 
hearings on renewal of license ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Yes. 

The Chairman. Last November ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Yes. 

The Chairman. What do you know about the man who runs that 
place ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. In what way? 

The Chairman. Well, as to his personal character. 

Mr. Sprinkle. Personally he is a man of good character. I have 
known him a great number of years. He has run a bar in that pre¬ 
cinct I presume for 25 years. He had a bar at the southwest corner 
of Fourteenth and Pennsylvania Avenue for a great number of years. 

The Chairman. Was he not convicted of selling liquor to a minor 
at one time ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. You ask at that time. Up to the time he assumed 
charge of the Grand Hotel I do not think there was anything against 
his record. 

The Chairman. I see. 

Mr. Sprinkle. But he was convicted of selling to minors, and his 
license was rejected about four years ago. Then there was some 
application, in what way I do not know, and he got a license. 

The Chairman. He organized a corporation ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Yes, sir; under the present system he has assumed 
the majority control of the stock of this corporation and has assumed 
the managership of the hotel as a result. Of course that is only, in 
my judgment, a subterfuge. 

The Chairman. Is there not an indictment pending against him 
now? 

Mr. Sprinkle. There are two cases, I believe, pending against him 
in the police court for selling to minors. 

Senator Jones. That hotel and bar are on Government property? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that place run as a regular hotel as well as a 
barroom ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


257 


Mr. Sprinkle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do guests come there all the time? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And stop ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Oh, it is a good, large hotel. I presume there are 
150 rooms in it. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any disreputable use made of 
the rooms at any time ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. The conduct of the hotel and conduct of the bar 


proper have always been moral and good enough, but its objectionable 
feature was in connection with the bar, to which I so seriously ob¬ 
jected, and which I think reduces the morality of any neighborhood 
m the way it was run. 

The Chairman. You made a report over your own signature that 
it was a resort of people of low character and questionable character? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Yes; from my personal observation; not from 
reports of subordinates. 

The Chairman. From your own personal observation ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. You considered that part run in a very disreputa¬ 
ble way, did you not ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And in a very disreputable place? 

Mr. Sprinkle. I think it had a tendency to decrease the morality 
of the community. 

Senator Jones. Very decidedly. 

Mr. Sprinkle. And I did not think it was good public policy to 
permit such a place to be run. 

The Chairman. That is sufficient. You may be excused. 

Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Just a minute, Lieut. Sprinkle. 

Mr. Smith. May I invite the attention of the committee to the 
testimony of the witness before the board at the hearings? You 
have that here with the hearings. I just invite your attention to it, 
Senator. 

Senator Jones. Oh, yes; we will examine the record in that case, 
General. 

Mr ; Smith. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any other places of disreputable 
character in that precinct—similar places? 

Mr. Sprinkle. There is one running now at Tenth and E which 
is as bad as the Grand Hotel ever was, in my judgment. 

The Chairman. What place is that? 

Mr. Sprinkle. The Marks Hotel, at Tenth and E Streets NW. 

The Chairman. What do you know about that? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Well, it is practically the same as the others. The 
same class of people, to a great extent, frequent it; but it is not such 
an elaborate place. They are more condensed there, and in fact 
it makes it really a worse place than the other. 

The Chairman. Was that brought to the attention of the board ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Yes; its appointments are not so elaborate. I do 
not think there was any controversy at the time, because just prior 
to the license year ending, this man did conduct his place very good 
for a few weeks prior to that, and there had not been much record 


258 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

against it, but soon after his license was granted the place commenced 
being bad and grew from bad to worse, until now it is the worst place 
we have in the precinct; and probably almost one-third of the bar¬ 
rooms in the District of Columbia are in my precinct. 

The Chairman. In your precinct ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. I expect so; yes, sir. I do not know the exact 
number. That takes in the territory from Seventh to Fifteenth and 
from B to K Streets NW. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any violations of the Sunday law 
by these saloons in your precinct ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. No; the Sunday law is very well observed, so far 
as I know. Indeed, I have every reason to believe that the Sunday 
law is well observed in all the barrooms. 

Senator Jones. Do you’ submit reports to Maj. Sylvester with 
reference to these saloons in these different places from time to time ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. No, sir; pnly at their applications for renewals each 
year. 

Senator Jones. Then their applications are referred to you ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And reports are made ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. We never submit special reports unless there is 
something extraordinary, much out of the ordinary. 

Senator Jones. So that there have been no reports submitted with 
respect to this Marks place since the license was granted ? 

Mr. Sprinkle. No, sir. 

The Chairman. That is sufficient. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. LOUIS BUSH. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your full name ? 

Mr. Bush. Louis Bush. 

The Chairman. How long have you been a resident of the District 
of Columbia? 

Mr. Bush. About 23 years. 

The Chairman. From what State did you come here ? 

Mr. Bush. From Elmira, N. Y; New York State. 

The Chairman. Were you operating a saloon until October 31 last? 

Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where ? . 

Mr. Bush. At 1305 E Street. 

The Chairman. Did you make application for a renewal of your 
license ? 

Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What became of that application ? 

Mr. Bush. It was refused. 

The Chairman. Was it at one time accepted before it was finally 
refused ? 

Mr. Bush. That was the talk on the street. That was what I 
heard. Of course I do not know, but I was informed that it was 

f ranted. It was one Mr. Riley who told me. I do not know where 
e received his information. He is an undertaker. He lives on 
Capitol Hill, and he met me on the street Thursday morning and he 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


259 


said, /Mr. Bush, your license has been granted.” Now, where he 
got his information, I do not know. Then I had understood after¬ 
wards that it was common talk on the street that my license had 
been granted. I do not know just who it was that said it, but it was 
common talk on the street up until Friday night. 

The Chairman. Who represented you in your application? 

Mr. Bush. Julius Peyser was my attorney, and he also had Mr. 
Sheehy to help him. Mr. Peyser represented me. 

The Chairman. What did you pay him? 

Mr. Bush. I just paid him a small retainer. 

The Chairman. Was there a contingent fee in the event you got 
the license ? 

Mr. Bush. In case I would get my license; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What was the retainer? 

Mr. Bush. $250. 

The Chairman. You paid him $250 ? 

Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How much were you to pay him in case you got 
the license ? 

Mr. Bush. I was to pay Peyser $1,000 in case I got my license. 

The Chairman. Was Mr. Sheehy to have a part of that? 

Mr. Bush. I don’t know. I suppose it was to be that way. 

The Chairman. You had no arrangement yourself with Mr. 
Sheehy? 

Mr. Bush. No; I had my arrangement with Mr. Peyser. Mr. 
Peyser has been representing me for years. He was my attorney. 

The Chairman. Why did you think it was necessary to pay so 
large a fee as that to get a renewal of your license ? 

Mr. Bush. I didn’t know it was necessary at all, but Mr. Peyser 
had always represented me from time to time, and I did not really 
know that it was necessary. I only thought, on account of the num¬ 
ber of saloons in that block, five, that a man had to be represented, 
that was all. 

The Chairman. Did he say anything to you about the advantage 
of having Mr. Sheehy in the case ? 

Mr. Bush. No; he did not speak of advantage, at all. 

The Chairman. Why did he engage Mr. Sheehy ? 

Mr. Bush. I don’t know. He never said anything to me. I 
engaged Mr. Peyser. 

Senator Jones. Did you have any talk with him about the size of 
this fee that you were to pay him ? 

Mr. Bush. Nothing only to Mr. Peyser, that is all. 

Senator Jones. That is what I mean—to Peyser? Did you not 
protest that that was a little high for presenting an application to 
the excise board ? 

Mr. Bush. I kind of thought it was, but he said that was his fee, 
and that is all there was. 

Senator Jones. Did he tell you that he had got Mr. Sheehy to help ? 

Mr. Bush. He said that Mr. Sheehy would work with him to try 
to obtain my license. They never guaranteed me anything. They 
said they would try to get it for me. 

Senator Jones. Did he explain why he thought he ought to have 
Mr. Sheehy help ? 

84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3- 


•18 


260 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Bush. I do not remember whether he did or not. I hardly 
think he did. He just said he would have Mr. Sheehy cooperate with 
him; that was all. 

Senator Jones. You did not ask him why he thought Mr. Sheehy 
was necessary ? 

Mr. Bush. NoJ sir. 

Senator Jones. You paid him $250 ? 

Mr. Bush. That was all. 

Senator Jones. And then you were to pay him $1,000 if you got 
the license ? 

Mr. Bush. If I received the license. 

The Chairman. Did you not try to get a transfer to some other 
place ? 

Mr. Bush. Yes; I tried to transfer out of that block to the Evans 
Building. 

The Chairman. Whom did you speak to about that, on the board ? 

Mr. Bush. I spoke to Mr. Sheehy when he was on the board. 

The Chairman. What did he say to you about that ? 

Mr. Bush. He said that they would not consider a transfer at the 
terminal of any street railroad. 

The Chairman. Did any other member of the board talk with you 
about it ? 

Mr. Bush. I think the other members were there; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They were there at the time ? 

Mr. Bush. They were there at the time. Mr. Sheehy was the 
spokesman. 

Senator Jones. Did they seemingly acquiesce in what he said? 

Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Then they afterwards did grant a transfer to that 
place ? 

Mr. Bush. So I understand. There is a barroom there. 

The Chairman. Did you not try to locate at 1421 G Street? Did 
you not try to get to post there ? 

Mr. Bush. At 1421? 

The Chairman. What other place did you apply for ? 

Mr. Bush. I don't remember about 1421. iknow that I had it in 
mind, but whether I had ever taken it up with the board or not, I do 
not remember. I remember having that particular stand in mind. 
It is now a barroom. I do not remember. 

The Chairman. You remember that place, but do not remember 
whether you took it up or not ? 

Mr. Bush. I remember having it in mind. 

The Chairman. You remember having in mind this place in the 
Evans Building, also ? 

Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there a barroom there now ? 

Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And they told you—you say Mr. Sheehy told you— 
that they would not consider a barroom there ? 

Mr. Bush. He said they would not consider a bar at the terminal 
of a street railway; that was a congested region around there, and 
women were getting off the cars and getting on, and it was too close 
to the terminus of the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Railway, 
and also the other street railways. Of course, I had not made appli- 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 261 

cation. I went over there and asked them about it, and they would 
not let me put a card up. 

The Chairman. They would not let you put a card up ? 

Mr. Bush. They would not permit me to post it. 

The Chairman. To post notice of your application ? 

Mr. Bush. No, sir. Of course, I did not know whether I was 
going to be the goat or not, or who was going to be the goat; but I 
wanted to play safe, and I thought that if I could get up in another 
and better neighborhood I might be safe up there. I do not know 
why I felt that way. I had been in this particular place where I was 
refused a license for 21 years. 

The Chairman. You had been there for 21 years? 

Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Had there been any complaints about the manner 
in which you conducted your business ? 

Mr. Bush. No, sir; none. Only I ran a cafe some years ago, and 
there seemed to be a general complaint in regard to all cafes at that 
time; no particular complaint against me, only it was against all 
cafes. 

The Chairman. Had there been any protests against the renewal 
of your license ? 

Mr. Bush. No, sir; never in those 21 years. 

The Chairman. Had you any police court record ? 

Mr. Bush. No, sir; I have never been in police court. I never 
had an arrest made in my place. 

The Chairman. That is all. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM A. ENGEL. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Give your full name. 

Mr. Engel. William A. Engel. 

The Chairman. What is your business ? 

Mr. Engel. I am in the barroom and restaurant business. 

The Chairman. Where are you operating now? 

Mr. Engel. At 1335 E Street. 

The Chairman. How long have you been operating there ? 

Mr. Engel. A little over four years. 

The Chairman. How long have you been a resident of the District ? 

Mr. Engel. Twenty-six years. 

The Chairman. What were you doing before you went in the 
business there ? 

Mr. Engel. I was 11 years with the Pabst Brewing Co., of Mil¬ 
waukee, as manager, and 10 years I was in the hotel business here 
at New Jersey Avenue and C Street, near the Capitol. 

The Chairman. Did you have any trouble about renewal of your 
license last November ? 

Mr. Engel. The license was granted to me; that is all I know 
about that part of it. I did not have any trouble, of course; the 
license was granted. 

The Chairman. Who was your attorney ? 

Mr. Engel. Mr. Burkhart. 

The Chairman. What did you pay him to represent you ? 


262 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Engel. I have not paid him anything, and there is no under¬ 
standing what I will pay him. He is my regular attorney. 

The Chairman. He is your regular attorney, and there is no special 
fee to be paid him for this work ? 

Mr. Engel. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. You understood at the time that your application 
for renewal had been denied, did you not ? 

Mr. Engel. I only heard talk of it as long as a week or 10 days 
before the license was granted, that I would be turned down. Every¬ 
body expected that somebody had to go, and they were guessing who 
would be the one. That is as far as I know about it. 

Senator Jones,, When you heard these remarks that you were 
likely to be turned down, did you or not confer with your attorney ? 

Mr. Engel. I told Mr. Burkhart to try his best to show the excise 
board the reasons why I should get a license. 

Senator Jones. Did he not suggest that there should be some 
influence of some kind brought to bear ? 

Mr. Engel. No; he has never suggested anything like that. He 
merely told me to talk to my friends, if there was anybody who could 
do anything for me; I might suggest to my friends that if there was 
any chance, to show why I should get a license. 

Senator Jones. Did you not take it up with the Pabst Brew¬ 
ing Co. ? 

Mr. Engel. No, sir. 

■Senator Jones. Did you not take it up with their agent? 

Mr. Engel. I spoke to him many times and expressed the hope 
that I would get my license. 

Senator Jones. You took the matter up with him and told him 
you understood they were about to reject you, and asked him to do 
what he could to help you out ? 

Mr. Engel. No; I did not, because I did not know of that. 

Senator Jones. But you heard that you were likely to be turned 
down? 

Mr. Engel. Well, that was common talk; that was the rumor. 
Some people came to me and told me that they would bet money I 
would get it, and others said that I would be rejected. 

Senator Jones. Did not that stir him up ? 

Mr. Engel. Yes. Of course he knew I was doing all I could for 
myself, if there was any chance to do it. 

Senator Jones. Who is the agent of the Pabst Brewing Co. ? 

Mr. Engel. Mr. Mentzel. 

Senator Jones. Do you not know that he interested himself in the 
matter ? 

Mr. Engel. I have no doubt that he desired to see me get a license, 
but what he could do, I do not know. 

Senator Jones. Have you talked with him since about it, as to 
what he did do ? 

Mr. Engel. Oh, yes. Anything he done, I haven't asked him any 
questions about, because I didn't think he could do anything. 

Senator Jones. You really do not want to know what he did, 
do you ? 

Mr. Engel. If I thought he could, I would ask him. 

Senator Jones. You really do not want to know what he did, do 
you? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


263 


Mr. Engel. It doesn’t matter, because I didn’t know there was 
any trouble, nor I didn’t think he could do anything. That was really 
my place. 

Senator Jones. You do not know whether he interested any 
Members of the House or Senate or not? 

Mr. Engel. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. You have not asked him whether he did or not? 

Mr. Engel. I have not asked him any questions. 

Senator Jones. No; and you are not going to, are you? 

Mr. Engel. I can not see why I shomd. 

Senator Jones. No; you are not. Do you know whether any 
Senator or Representative interested himself in your behalf in this 
matter ? 

Mr. Engel. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. And you are not going to try to find that out, 
are you ? 

Mr. Engel. Why should I ? 

Senator Jones. You have not talked with your attorney as to what 
you are to pay him? 

Mr. Engel. No, sir; I do not expect to pay him any more than 
what is right and proper; possibly $50, or $25 only. I do not know; 
he might not charge me anything, so far as I know. 

Senator Jones. He may charge you three or four thousand dollars ? 

Mr. Engel. He won’t. He could not collect it. He knows better. 

Senator Jones. Did he have anybody help him? 

Mr. Engel. That I could not tell. 

Senator Jones. Suppose he comes and tells you that he had Mr. 
Sheehy help him, and that was the only way he could get that license 
renewed, and that he had to pay him; you will pay him, will you 
not? You will make good his agreement? 

Mr. Engel. I think my attorney stands on his own feet. 

Senator Jones. I say, you will make good any agreement that he 
made with reference to getting your license renewed, will you not ? 

Mr. Engel. Oh, no; I would like to be asked, first, about that part. 

Senator Jones. You have not paid anything, you have not agreed 
to pay anything, and you do not know what you are going to pay ? 

Mr. Engel. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. That is all. 

Mr. Engel. Because I was not able to pay anything, on account 
of the conditions of business; so that my attorney has not given me 
any bill, and I expect a very small one. 

Senator Jones. It is pretty good notice to him, anyway. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL P. FITZSIMMONS. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your full name ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Michael P. Fitzsimmons. 

The Chairman. What is your business ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Tailor. 

The Chairman. You recall the application of Thomas Raftery for 
a saloon license ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes. 


264 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

The Chairman. He wanted a license in the block where you did 
business ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. In the store where I was. 

The Chairman. In the store where you did business? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes. 

The Chairman. State what took place between you and him. 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. He brought a representative from Shannon & 
Luchs to my place, Mr. Rose, and he finally agreed to take the place. 
I had no lease on this store, but it was about March 12 or 15, some¬ 
where between those dates, that he came there, and I had opened the 
store in the dull season, the latter part of November, and I had not 
had a chance to get any business in that season, so that I asked Mr. 
Raftery if he would consent to my remaining through the season to 
give me a chance to do some business during the busy season, and I 
said I would be willing to vacate at that time. 

The Chairman. When was that ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. About March 15. 

The Chairman. Of last year ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. 1914. 

The Chairman. You had a lease on this store, or did you own it ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I did not have any lease on it. 

The Chairman. Did you own the place ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No; I was only a tenant. 

The Chairman. You were there just as a tenant at will? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. As a monthly tenant. 

The Chairman. A monthly tenant ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir; so that he agreed to let me remain until 
July 15, or perhaps August 1, and I went up to the excise board to 
find out what conditions were imposed, having heard that such was 
not the case and I would not be permitted to stay. 

The Chairman. Had he posted a notice there that he was going 
to make application for license ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir; at that time, the day before I went up 
to the excise board. Mr. Sheehy was then a member of the board. 
I saw him, and he stated that even though I was only a monthly ten¬ 
ant I had certain property rights, and he advised me to consult an 
attorney; and the attorney advised me to take the sign down, so that 
I did take it down. The same afternoon Mr. Rose and Mr. Raftery 
came to my store and wanted to know what was the trouble, and so 
forth. I told them. I explained to them that I felt the conditions 
were not as he had expected; that the board would expect them to 
show some activity within a reasonable time. 

The Chairman. Had any protests been made in regard to that 
saloon at that time ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes; I had started one the day previous. 

The Chairman. You started one? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes. 

The Chairman. In your block? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I explained to Rose and Raftery. Mr. Rose 
was the representative of Shannon & Luchs, real estate brokers. I 
explained that if I was going to move, I was going to move within the 
next two weeks, and that I was going to try and beat his license; and 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 265 

^ ? ? vas t° move he had to pay the expense of my moving, 

which he agreed to do, $100 payment at once and $100 additional 
transfer. The proposition did not bother me any, because 
the following day I rented a store on North Capitol Street. 

The Chairman. Were you to destroy these protests as a part of 
your agreement? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. As part of the agreement? No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you destroy the protests ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I did destroy them the day I was given the $100. 

The Chairman. How many names were on that paper ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. About 12. 

The Chairman. Were they residents on that block? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Property owners. 

The Chairman. Property owners? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes. 

The Chairman. Go ahead. 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. The following day Mr. Raftery came in the 
store and gave me a paper. 

The Chairman. Had Raftery seen those protests ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes. They were destroyed in his presence. 

The Chairman. Had he seen them before he offered you the $100 ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, sir; the protests had nothing to do with the 
receipt of the $100. I beg to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this 
agreement was drawn in the office of Shannon & Luchs, and was to take 
effect on demand, and it was that I would enter no further protests, 
and to vacate at the time I told him I would, because I rented that 
store on North Capitol Street and got out at once. 

But Mr. Raftery brought me that paper the following day to my 
store, and said that Mr. Keane had sent this paper to me, so I opened 
up the paper and read it. 

The Chairman. What Keane was that ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Michael Keane, a lawyer. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. So that I opened that paper and read it, and I 
said, “I can not understand why he sent me this.” I said, “This 
protest is stronger than the one I had given me by the Anti-Saloon 
League for my first protest.” 

The Chairman. Mr. Raftery gave you that protest? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. He gave me this paper. 

The Chairman. What did he tell you to do with it? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I said, “What does Mr. Keane want me to do?” 
He said “He wants you to get some names on it.” I opened it up 
and read it more carefully, and it was even stronger than the protest 
that I had originally started; so that I told him to meet me in the office 
of Mr. Keane the following morning, and I would see what object 
he had in view in this protest. I went to the office of Mr. Keane 
the following morning, and he said to me “I want you to keep this 
protest alive, so that no other protest will be started up by anyone 
else in the neighborhood, and keep it alive until a couple of days 
before the hearing, and then turn it over to Mr. Raftery or me.” 

The Chairman. Mr. Keane said that to you ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir. I had known Mr. Keane a number of 
years, and I said to him “Mike, I will not do it, but I will have it 
done for you;” but I unfortunately consented to do it, and did do it, 


266 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


and turned that second protest over to Mr. Raftery before the 
hearing. 

The Chairman. Two or three days before the hearing? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Perhaps two or three days before. There were 
about 15 names on it. 

I should like to say in regard to No. 406, which is the number of the 
original place where the application had been made for, that having 

f one into the matter to some extent myself, I know that it would 
ave cost Mr. Raftery $14,000 or $15,000 to get into No. 406, and the 
second application, that for No. 420, was at the corner of Fifth and 
H Streets, and that was a very desirable place, a good place. It 
was a good move on the part of the attorney, excepting that in 
changing from No. 406 to No. 420 he made tne charge before the 
excise board that I was a hold-up man. 

The Chairman. Who made that charge? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Michael Keane; and also before the excise 
board he asserted that I was a clubfooted liar in my testimony. 
This was after I left the stand. 

The Chairman. On the stand you had related what you have 
related here ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Just as I am telling it to you. 

The Chairman. And then Mr. Keane took the stand and said that 
you were a liar? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. A clubfooted liar. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. The license for No. 420 had been rejected. The 
expenditure for No. 420, at the corner of Fifth and H streets, was to 
be only $3,200, and in order to get into No. 406 it would cost him 
anywhere from $14,000 to $15,000. Mr. Raftery broke the agree¬ 
ment with the owner of the property. He had agreed to buy the 
property for $7,000, feeling that he would be able to get his transfer 
to No. 420; so that when he came back to No. 420, the landlord raised 
the price of the property from $7,000 to $8,500, which Mr. Raftery 
was obliged to pay. 

Mr. Keane has made this charge before the excise board, which 
should be a matter of record, and I beg to be rather forceful in the 
assertion that I am not a clubfooted liar, and if there is any liar in 
the case, it is Mr. Keane. 

The Chairman. Why did you say it would cost him $14,000 or 
$15,000 to get in there? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. He would have to pay $7,000 for the property, 
and according to the plans submitted by the architect, there would 
be $4,900 for the improvements. He had to transform the entire 
place, to dig a cellar, and so on. He had to get all the bar fixtures. 
There is $12,000 right off the reel, before he even started to furnish 
the place. 

The Chairman. And he was to get a transfer for only a small part 
of a license year, was he not ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. What do you say? 

The Chairman. He was to get a transfer only for the balance of 
the license year; or was this at the end of the license year? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. At the end of the year. 

The Chairman. At the end of the license year ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. At the end of the year. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


267 


The Chairman. It was a transfer, was it not ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about what his attorney’s 
fees were? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I have not the slightest idea, excepting on the 
outstart—mind you, now, up to my receiving this $100 deposit for 
vacating on demand, there was no attorney had been brought into 
the case at all. This matter had been gone over with Mr. Rose, the 
representative of Shannon & Luchs, and it was not until this incident 
had been entirely closed that Mr. Keane was brought into the case, 
or at least so far as my connection with the case was concerned; and 
Mr. Raftery had told me that Mr. Keane was his attorney, and one 
of the saloon keepers in the neighborhood asked me the question 
who his attorney was, and I told him what Raftery had told me, 
and he said that he would bet me $50 to $10 that Keane was not his 
attorney. 

The Chairman. Were some of these names on the first protest 
you got out the same as those on the second ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Were they entirely different names? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. But they were the names of property owners in 
the block? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I had every property owner in the block except 
those who kept a saloon or owned the property. 

The Chairman. On the original protest? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. On the original protest. The Brahler estate 
owned two pieces of property, and Mr. Webber ran a grocery store 
there and he owned two pieces of property. With the exception of 
that, I had every property owner, with the exception of Mr. Sturgis. 

The Chairman. When this second protest was brought to you from 
Mr. Keane, what names were put on it ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I really could not recall. I gave the protest to 
a young man by the name of James Loeffler and told him to get the 
names. I told him he could go up on Fifth Street and just go in one 
or two houses each day. 

The Chairman. Did Mr. Loeffler know that Raftery wanted that 
protest circulated ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He did not tell the protestants, however, did he ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, sir. In fact, all the names he secured, prac¬ 
tically, were those of women, anyway. He got the property owners, 
the same as I did in the original protest. 

The Chairman. Did it have the result of keeping down other 
protests. 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. There was no protest. 

The Chairman. Aside from that one ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. There was none at all against Raftery. The 
second protest I had given to Raftery had never been uncovered at all. 

The Chairman. I know that was not presented, but did it not have 
the effect of keeping others from being circulated ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I presume it did, in view of the character of the 
neighborhood, with which I was thoroughly acquainted for the past 
20 years. 


268 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Senator Jones. These facts were brought out before the board ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. You never heard Mr. Raftery say anything about 
what he expected to pay his attorney ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes; he told me that Keane expected $500; but 
he said that he was going to get someone else who was going to do it 
for $250. 

Senator Jones. That is, Raftery said he was going to get somebody 
else? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Who would do it for $250 ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir. Of course Mr. Keane was really his 
attorney; and in the last case in connection with Mr. Sheehy. 

Senator Jones. In the last case in connection with Mr. Sheehy ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes. 

Senator Jones. He did not tell you he was getting Sheehy for 
$250, did he? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. He did not indicate what he was paying him? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, sir. 

The Chairman. That is all, unless you want to make some further 
statement. 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, nothing other than that I desire to impress 
on the committee that the charge Mr. Keane made before the excise 
board, which is or should be a matter of record, is entirely untruthful. 

Senator Jones. Yes. We are not going to investigate that. 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I just wanted to say that. 

The Chairman. Take the stand again, please. I want to ask you 
something else. Did you testify at two hearings before the board? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Only one hearing. I asked for a personal hear¬ 
ing at first, a private hearing, and it was not a private hearing, the 
full board was there and I was there with my attorney, when I under¬ 
stood that Mr. Keane had made a charge that I was a hold-up man, 
and I appealed to the board. 

The Chairman. Was that relative to No. 420 or No. 406, that he 
made that charge ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. This was just in the interim between trying to 
get the second transfer from No. 406 to No. 420, that Mr. Keane 
made the charge that he did before the excise board, my attorney, 
Mr. Clark, being present at the time. He charged me with being a 
hold-up man in connection with my getting this amount of money 
to vacate on demand. 

The Chairman. Where was the place which you had offered to 
vacate ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No. 406. 

The Chairman. You were at No. 406? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. After you had vacated that place he got a license 
at No. 406, or was that declined? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. That was granted. 

The Chairman. That was granted ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Afterwards he tried to transfer to No. 420 ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. To No. 420. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


269 


The Chairman. What happened to that application? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. It was refused, and afterwards No. 406 was 
restored to him by the excise board, on his original application. 

The Chairman. Why was it that he did not begin to do business 
at No. 406 when he got his license there ? Did he not have some trou¬ 
ble about getting the property ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No; he broke his agreement with the owner of 
the property. He was to pay the first installment within 60 days 
after the filing of the agreement, and I am only stating what I heard, 
only I do know that he failed to come through with his first payment 
within the required time, and the landlord broke the agreement with 
him, and then raised the price of the property after he came back the 
second time. He broke the agreement with the landlord. 

The Chairman. You testified then on No. 420? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No. 420. 

The Chairman. And that application was declined? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. That application was declined; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In the meantime, however, he had made his 
arrangements with the landlord at No. 406, and they gave him a 
license there ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir; the landlord increasing the price of the 
property $1,500—from $7,000 to $8,500. 

The Chairman. Gen. Smith, the records in both of these Raftery 
cases are here, are they not ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JEREMIAH COSTELLO. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Costello, state your full name? 

Mr. Costello. Jeremiah Costello. 

The Chairman. What business are you in? 

Mr. Costello. Barroom business. 

The Chairman. Where is your place of business? 

Mr. Costello. No. 521 First Street SW. 

The Chairman. How long have you been doing business there ? 

Mr. Costello. Since last June. 

The Chairman. Did you get a license last June? 

Mr. Costello. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you got your renewal last November? 

Mr. Costello. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who represented you in getting your license? 

Mr. Costello. Mr. Alexander H. Bell. 

The Chairman. What did you pay him? 

Mr. Costello. I paid him $300 for that and some more business. 
Mr. Bell has been our attorney for years, and with that and some 
more business that he transacted, and which I paid him for at the 
same time, I paid him $300. 

The Chairman. Did you pay him anything m November for get¬ 
ting the renewal ? 

Mr. Costello. $100 in November. 

The Chairman. How far are you from the nearest church? 

Mr. Costello. About a thousand feet. 


270 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. How far? 

Mr. Costello. About 1,000 feet. 

The Chairman. What church is that? 

Mr. Costello. I do not know. There is one church down there 
about three squares away, called the Friendship Baptist Church. 

The Chairman. Is it not the St. John’s Baptist Church? 

Mr. Costello. Not that I know of. I can’t see any down there. 
There were a church there that were in a Sanitary Grocery store about 
a week or so. I think he went out the back way, which he didn’t pay 
no rent. 

The Chairman. You think there was a church there for a while? 

Mr. Costello. There were a church there about a week or so; it 
was in a room 10 by 12. It was formerly a grocery store. 

The Chairman. That was within 400 feet of you, was it not? 

Mr. Costello. Of my place now? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Costello. Yes; that was right across the street. 

The Chairman. But you say that is no longer there ? 

Mr. Costello. No; that wasn’t there three weeks. He didn’t have 
no congregation or anything. 

The Chairman. Was it there when you applied for a license? 

Mr. Costello. He came there and I didn’t know he was there. I 
didn’t know there was any church. Not when I applied for a license 
he wasn’t there. 

The Chairman. And you did not know it was there ? 

Mr. Costello. There wasn’t any sign or anything. All I see was 
he walked over there with a little pasteboard sign—St. John’s Baptist 
Church. They didn’t even have chairs in there. I would like for 
you to come down there and see the building that church was in. 

The Chairman. We will. You found afterwards that they were 
there, when you applied for the license ? 

Mr. Costello. Yes; they were there when I applied for the license. 
They went out in two weeks, though. 

The Chairman. Did they protest against your license ? 

Mr. Costello. Not as I know of. There wasn’t but one protest, 
and that was from some colored gentleman down there—a colored 
man. 

The Chairman. Are there any inhabited alleys around your place ? 

Mr. Costello. There is an alley right there near me. It is not 
inhabited, though. There is only one resident in it. 

The Chairman. How far is it from the entrance to your barroom 
to the entrance to Ellison Court? 

Mr. Costello. Ellison Court? 

The Chairman. Yes; that is an alley there? 

Mr. Costello. That is, I judge, about 25 feet. 

The Chairman. Is there another alley there called Brown Court? 

Mr. Costello. Yes. 

The Chairman. How far is that from the entrance of that alley to 
your saloon ? 

Mr. Costello. I judge it is about 300 and some feet. 

The Chairman. I mean from your entrance to the entrance to that 
court ? 

Mr. Costello. Brown Court is an alley that has four entrances 
to it. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


271 


The Chairman . How far is it to the nearest entrance to you ? 

Mr CostelYo. I judge that it is about 300 feet—over 300 feet. 

The Chairman. How much did it cost you to arrange to start your 
bar there ? 

Mr. Costello. What do you mean—the new bar ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Costello. It stood me in the neighborhood of about $12,000; 
between $12,000 and $15,000. 

The Chairman. What were the items in that expenditure? 

Mr. Costello. What do you mean ? 

The Chairman. I mean, what did you spend it for? 

Mr. Costello. The property and the building I put up there. 

The Chairman. And the fixtures? 

Mr. Costello. Yes; I bought fixtures. 

The Chairman. Did you construct the building? 

Mr. Costello. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It cost you between $12,000 and $15,000? 

Mr. Costello. Yes; between $12,000 and $15,000. 

The Chairman. Did you make this expenditure before you made 
application for your license ? 

Mr. Costello. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you have any assurance that you would get 
your license ? 

Mr. Costello. I did not; none in the least. 

The Chairman. You took the chance? 

Mr. Costello. Yes; I went in business a few years before and 
paid a pretty big price for the place I was in, and I was just getting 
square, and I thought I had just as well take another chance. 

The Chairman. Did it cost you something to create some other 
businesses on your side of the block ? 

Mr. Costello. The business was all in the one building. I have 
got two buildings of my own there. 

The Chairman. Is that all there is on that block—your property ? 

Mr. Costello. No, sir; there is my property, and a drug store on 
the corner. 

The Chairman. Did you have to convert any residence property 
into business property ? 

Mr. Costello. Any other residence, you mean ? 

The Chairman. Any other residence property on that block into 
business property ? 

Mr. Costello. No; only my own. 

The Chairman. How long had you owned that ? 

Mr. Costello. Just previous to the law, about two or three 
months before, sometime last year, I bought it. 

The Chairman. You bought practically all the property, then, in 
the block besides the drug store ? 

Mr. Costello. Yes. 

The Chairman. What did that property consist of when you 
bought it—residences ? 

Mr. Costello. Two little frame houses. 

The Chairman. Two little frame houses? 

Mr. Costello. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What were they used for, residences—on F 
Street ? 


272 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Costello. My business is on First Street. 

The Chairman. They are all dwellings on F Street, are they not, 
except one or two ? 

Mr. Costello. No; there are shoe stores, and a feed store, and an 
oyster house and all. 

The Chairman. They are mostly dwellings ? 

Mr. Costello. Yes; mostly. 

The Chairman. And on this side on which you are located there 
were two frame residences when you bought the property ? 

Mr. Costello. On F Street, facing F Street. 

The Chairman. What was on the side of the street you are on? 
Mr. Costello. There wasn’t nothing there. 

The Chairman. Nothing at all ? 

Mr. Costello. Nothing at all; no, sir. 

The Chairman. Just a blank space there ? 

Mr. Costello. Just a fence along from the two frame residences. 
The Chairman. And you built that up with a bar and business 
property ? 

Mr. Costello. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that largely a colored neighborhood ? 

Mr. Costello. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is sufficient. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. PETER J. LYNAGH. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

Senator Thompson. Where do you live ? 

Mr. Lynagh. 503 Seventh Street SW. 

Senator Thompson. What is your business ? 

Mr. Lynagh. Saloon business. 

Senator Thompson. You run a saloon there at No. 503, do you? 
Mr. Lynagh. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. When did you locate there ? Did you go there 
by transfer ? 

Mr. Lynagh. By transfer; yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. In what place were you operating before? 

Mr. Lynagh. At No. 1200 Third Street SW. . 

Senator Thompson. When did you make this transfer ? 

Mr. Lynagh. In the month of July. 

Senator Thompson. Last year? 

Mr. Lynagh. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Whom, if anyone, did you employ to look 
after it for you ? 

Mr. Lynagh. For the transfer? 

Senator Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. Lynagh. Mr. Sheehy. 

Senator Thompson. What fee, if any, did you pay for that? 

Mr. Lynagh. A small retaining fee which he asked for, for to start 
the transfer. 

Senator Thompson. To start it ? 

Mr. Lynagh. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. How much was it ? 

Mr. Lynagh. $100. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 273 

Senator Thompson. Then did he effect the transfer: did he bring it 
about finally? 

Mr. Lynagh. Not at that time. 

Senator Thompson. Did you have any other relations with him later 
on in the summer relative to it? 

Mr. Lynagh. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. That is all he did, is it? 

Mr. Lynagh. That is all he did; yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. And did you have an understanding with Mr. 
Sheehy that you were to pay something more if you got the transfer ? 
Mr. Lynagh. Why, yes; sure. 

Senator Thompson. How much more? 

Mr. Lynagh. SI,000. 

Senator Thompson. SI,000 more? 

Mr. Lynagh. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. S100 retainer and SI,000 more? 

Mr. Lynagh. Yes, sir; exactly. 

Senator Thompson. You paid that? 

Mr. Lynagh. I did, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Did he give any explanation as to why it was 
necessary to charge such a fee as that ? 

Mr. Lynagh. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. You did not ask him any questions? 

Mr. Lynagh. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Did I understand you to say that you had 
paid the SI,000 ? 

Mr. Lynagh. When I got the transfer; yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. That is what I thought. 

Mr. Lynagh. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Are you in what is known as a residential 
neighborhood ? 

Mr. Lynagh. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Did you make any preparation, before moving 
there, contemplating this transfer ? 

Mr. Lynagh. From the old place ? 

Senator Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. Lynagh. Yes, sir; I did. 

Senator Thompson. What expense did you go to, or what did 
you do? 

Mr. Lynagh. There was a two-story confectionery there, and I 
bought the building. Then I applied for the transfer. 

Senator Thompson. At about what expense was that? 

Mr. Lynagh. Well, $8,000 or $9,000. 

Senator Thompson. $8,000 or $9,000? 

Mr. Lynagh. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Did you have any intimation from anyone 
that you could get a transfer to that place before ? 

Mr. Lynagh. No, sir; I had not. 

Senator Thompson. Is it on a business street? 

Mr. Lynagh. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Did you buy any other business along there ? 
Mr. Lynagh. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Any other business establishment ? 

Mr. Lynagh. No, sir. 


274 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Senator Jones. Did you buy any other place there and start a 
business in it? 

Mr. Lynagh. No, sir; I did not. They were already there. 

Senator Jones. What is that? 

Mr. Lynagh. They were already there; all business there. 

Senator Jones. Is the entire front of that block occupied for 
business purposes ? 

Mr. Lynagh. Yes; from east to west, on that block. 

Senator Jones. On the other block, what are they? 

Mr. Lynagh. There are only about two or three private houses. 

Senator Jones. All the rest are business places ? 

Mr. Lynagh. All the rest are stores; yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Did you not regard a fee of $1,000 as a little 
extravagant for a service of that kind ? 

Mr. Lynagh. I don’t think so, sir. 

Senator Thompson. You did not? 

Mr. Lynagh. No, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Did you ask him why it was necessary to pay 
a fee of that enormous amount? 

Mr. Lynagh. No; I did not. I was being put out of a home at the 
old place, and I thought it was reasonable enough, when I was put 
out of a home at the old place. 

Senator Thompson. Did he say anything as to why it was necessary 
for you to pay him that money ? 

Mr. Lynagh. No, sir; he did not. I had no conversation with 
him at all. 

Senator Jones. In your business a matter of a few hundred dollars 
does not amount to anything in accomplishing your purpose, does it ? 

Mr. Lynagh. Well, no, sir. 

The Chairman. The board has stated, Mr. Lynagh, that they do 
not consider an attorney necessary in those matters; that a man 
would stand as good a chance with them, or a better chance without 
an attorney than with one. 

Senator Jones. You have always found it better to have an 
attorney in those matters, have you not ? 

Mr. Lynagh. I found it necessary to have an attorney. There was 
a protest against me—a number of ladies and gentlemen made a 
protest—and I got Mr. Sheehy to defend me. He was chairman of 
the board before, and knew how things were done. 

Senator Jones. You thought the fact that he had been the chair¬ 
man of the board gave him greater influence ? 

Mr. Lynagh. He knew the ins and outs, and how to talk better 
than I did, and that was all. 

Senator Thompson. Was there a full hearing before the board? 

Mr. Lynagh. How is that? 

Senator Thompson. Was there a hearing before a board on this 
transfer ? 

Mr. Lynagh. There was; yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Was testimony introduced on both sides? 

Mr. Lynagh. On both sides ? 

Senator Thompson. For and against? 

Mr. Lynagh. Yes, sir. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

Senator Thompson. Mr. Hart, have we the hearing in the Lynagh 
case here. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


275 


Mr. Hart. I do not think you asked for that, Senator. 

Senator Thompson. We should like to have it. 

Mr. Hart. I will have it here this afternoon. 

Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, do you want the transfer and the appli¬ 
cation for renewal ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. If you please. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We will take a recess at this point. The witnesses 
who have testified are all excused. Their attendance will not be 
required unless they are called again. There is no necessity for 
them to return this afternoon. 

(After informal discussion for several minutes, the committee 
resumed its session.) 

TESTIMONY OF REV. GEORGE A. MILLER. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your calling % 

Mr. Miller. I am pastor of the Ninth Street Christian Church at 
Ninth and D Streets NE. 

The Chairman. Is there a saloon located in your vicinity ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes; there are two. One is three blocks in one direc¬ 
tion and the other is about two and a half blocks—less than two 
blocks—in another direction. That is purely a residential section. 
While there are a few little corner stores, it is a residential section. 
These two saloons were granted renewal t)f license there. 

The Chairman. Over protests ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir; both were protested. The first one is on 
the corner of Eleventh and C Streets NE., and is kept by Mr. Raf- 
tery, and there was a protest of that. Of the four blocks cornering 
there, we had, I judge, 75 per cent of all the residents who protested 
against the renewal of the license. The saloon faces on C Street and 
on Eleventh Street both. C Street is purely residential; only one 
grocery on the opposite corner, so that they closed up the entrance 
to the saloon which was the principal entrance on C Street, and left 
the one open on Eleventh Street. Now, Eleventh Street had but 
one little Chinese laundry, and there is an empty grocery store on 
Eleventh Street between B and C Streets. Mr. Raftery bought a resi¬ 
dence—to understand it, there is a street coming in between B and C, 
from Eleventh to Twelfth—Park Place—and on that, on Park Place, 
there are 37 residences. He bought one of these residences, that 
sided on Eleventh Street and faced on Park Place. He did not 
change the residence a particle, but he dug up the cellar and put a 
barber shop in there. Then he built back of his saloon two little 
one-story buildings on a vacant lot that came back to the alley, and 
thus made what he called, and what the excise board called, a busi¬ 
ness block by doing that; not getting rid of a single residence, for 
when he bought, the people lived there just as they did before, and 
the entrance is just the same as it was before, and all. 

On those four squares that come to a point there, there are 201 
residences. I might vary one or two in the count, but there are 201 
residences and there is one church. My church is three blocks from 
there, and there are, all told, 14 places of business in those four blocks. 

84513°—S. Doc. 9S1, 63-3-19 



276 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Three of these he made himself, and those are little one-story corner 
places, and I think with a residence over every one of them; and yet 
they declared that a business block. 

The Chairman. Were these facts brought to the attention of the 
excise board ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, these facts were all brought there; and the 
place itself is of a very questionable character, and the people have 
protested against it. 

Senator Thompson. Did they, at the time ? 

Mr. Miller. We presented these protests. We presented a blue 
print showing this block, and that it was a residential section. They 
came out and measured it, and facing on B Street, siding along 
Eleventh Street, is a drug store. That is parked off with a fence 
and a gate, and leads into the residence that is over the drug store. 
There is no way to get into the drug store from Eleventh Street. 
This is on the B Street entrance. But they counted all that parking 
and all that side of Eleventh Street as business property, and thus 
made out their 50 per cent of business property on that side of the 
square. They counted the side of this little barber shop, and the 
whole side of that residence, as business property, leaving the resi¬ 
dence just where it was, and cutting out a hole there and making a 
barber shop that he himself bought. 

Senator Thompson. You say it is a place of questionable character. 
In what respect is it questionable ? 

Mr. Miller. There are a great many colored and white people 
there, and there has been trouble there, although the police, I think, 
did not report any. But one policeman told me it was impossible 
for him to report, because he would lose his job if he did. 

Senator Thompson. Who was that? 

Mr. Miller. No. 

Senator Thompson. Do vou not want to give his name ? 

Mr. Miller. No, I would not do that. He might lose his job if 
I did. 

Senator Thompson. I do not think he would lose his job on account 
of that. 

Mr. Miller. Now, that is in a residential section. We have a 
church there with 1,300 members. My church is within three blocks. 

Senator Thompson. What church is that? 

Mr. Miller. The Ninth Street Christian Church. We have over 
1,000 in the Sunday School, within three blocks, and yet that does 
not amount to anything! 

The Chairman. You mean that your membership is largely within 
those blocks ? 

Mr. Miller. No; but I mean that the church is located within 
three blocks of the saloon. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Miller. And of course there are a good many of them within 
that limit, because it is right in the neighborhood and right in that 
section. 

Senator Thompson. Your claim is that it is a residential section ? 

Mr. Miller. A purely residential section. 

The Chairman. And that the block is not in any sense a business 
block ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. The only business on that block when the 
law went into effect was a little Chinese laundry on the back of a lot 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 277 

that faces on Park Place, and an empty grocery store with a residence 
over it. 

The Chairman. Do you remember Patrick Raftery’s saloon? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Do you know the number of his saloon ? 

Mr. Miller. It is at Eleventh and C Streets NE., facing on 
Eleventh Street. He closed up the C Street entrance. 

The Chairman. Did you have another saloon in mind ? 

Mr. Miller. That is something I want to bring to your attention, 
also. Two blocks in the opposite direction from my church is Mr. 
Hettinger’s saloon, a saloon of a very good character so far as character 
goes. Mr. Hettinger is in a point between D and E Streets. Maryland 
Avenue runs through there. Mr. Hettinger’s place faces on Eighth 
Street and has a side. He had a saloon and a restaurant connected 
with it, and they did the cooking in the hack part there, and served 
there. When this law went into effect he put a partition in there and 
partitioned off the saloon from the restaurant. The excise board de¬ 
cided that that was a block. There was nothing else in there hut those 
two, but they decided that that was a block from E Street over to 
Maryland Avenue, and granted him a license. If they had taken it 
from D to E Streets, there would have been no license, because the 
rest is all residences. But the point I want to make is that in the 
other case, of Raftery, whereas Park Place comes in, a street of 37 
residences, they did not count from C Street to Park Place a block, 
but they said “The block is from C to D,” and made out the 50 per 
cent. If they had counted the other way, they would not have had 
the 50 per cent from Park Place. I do not understand some things. 

The Chairman. What is Hettinger’s number ? 

Mr. Miller. It is at Eighth and Maryland Avenue. I do not 
know exactly the number. It faces on Eighth Street, and it is at 
Eighth and Maryland Avenue. 

The Chairman. We are very glad to have your statement, Doctor. 
Is there anything else you wish to offer ? It so, we will be glad to 
have it. 

Mr. Miller. No; that is all I want to call your attention to, these 
two cases of saloons in what are purely residential sections, and the 
fact that they have made those decisions, one as to a block that has 
one residence and one saloon, and call that an entire block, when 
it is only a few feet across from E Street to Maryland Avenue, the 
other as to a full street with 37 residences on it in the middle of the 
block which they do not consider at all, but count from B to C a full 
block, each time to get the saloon in. 

The Chairman. Very well, Doctor. We are very much obliged to you. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JULIUS I. PEYSER. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Give your full name. 

Mr. Peyser. Julius I. Peyser. 

The Chairman. What is your occupation? 

Mr. Peyser. I am an attorney at law, a member of the firm of 
Darr, Peyser & Taylor. 

The Chairman. What is your office address? 

Mr. Peyser. The Southern Building. 


278 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

The Chairman. What is your residence address ? 

Mr. Peyser. No. 1940 Bntmore Street. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in the District. 

Mr. Peyser. All my life. I have practiced law here about 15 
years. 

The Chairman. Did you represent Mr. Bush in his efforts to get 
a license from the excise board ? 

Mr. Peyser. I did. 

The Chairman. Did you represent him in his efforts to get a 
license at the Evans Building and some other places ? 

Mr. Peyser. Yes, sir; I did. 

The Chairman. Please state the circumstances. 

Mr. Peyser. I was the attorney for Mr. Bush, and I understood 
that only three places could remain on E Street. I did not want 
Mr. Bush to run the risk of losing the license, so that I went down 
to see the board about it. I tola them that while Bush had been 
there longer than anyone, longer than Miller, I thought I would rather 
look around and see if I could not find a place. I spoke to Gen. 
Smith, and it was in the presence of Mr. Baker. They asked me if I 
had any place in view. I told them no, but I wanted to find out how 
the board felt about it, and if I found a place I would come down. 
I came down two days thereafter. I had negotiated with a real 
estate broker to obtain the place in the Evans Building. Then they 
told me to go ahead and I went ahead and saw Chairman Smith—or 
Mr. Smith at that time, he was not chairman—Gen. Smith—and told 
him I wanted to post for Mr. Bush in the place now occupied by Mr. 
McCarthy. 

The Chairman. The place now occupied as a saloon by Mr. 
McCarthy? 

Mr. Peyser. Yes. They told me they would not allow me to post 
at any railroad terminal. They also repeated the fact. They said 
“I think we told you that a short time ago.” I had been down there 
to get the opportunity to post either for Mr. Rosenthal or Mr. Bush, 
I am not positive which one of my clients, where McMillen’s place is 
located. I can not tell you where the place is, but it is on G Street. 

The Chairman. No. 1421 ? 

Mr. Peyser. I would not like to say. 

Senator Thompson. It is about there ? 

Mr. Peyser. Yes, it is on the north side of the street. They 
refused to permit me to get a card for either Mr. Rosenthal or Mr. 
Bush, but a short while thereafter I saw a card posted for McMillen, 
and the license was granted; and we sort of talked over the circum¬ 
stances about a railroad terminal, and I said I didn’t see any reason, 
as long as I had got the permission of the owners of the Evans Build¬ 
ing for' the granting of a license, why they would not allow me even 
to post, and I said “Unless the objections come from the parties who 
own the property and are in that neighborhood;” but notwithstand¬ 
ing my insistence in the matter they refused to allow me to post. 
That was the second time. 

The Chairman. To what railroad terminal did they have reference ? 

Mr. Peyser. The G Street line terminal. The tracks stop at Fif¬ 
teenth and G Streets, and the line that goes northeast stops at Fif¬ 
teenth and New York Avenue. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 279 

The Chairman. Both of those will be street railroad terminals; 
they are terminals of street car lines ? 

Mr. Peyser. Of street car lines entirely. 

The Chairman. The Evans Building is the terminal of the line 
that comes down NemYork Avenue? 

Mr. Peyser. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the place where McMillen does business is 
the terminal for the line that goes out G Street? 

Mr. Peyser. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is it not also the terminal of the Washington, 
Baltimore & Annapolis Railroad ? 

Mr. Peyser. Yes, but this place is at Fourteenth and New York 
Avenue, and that car generally goes to the end of the tracks at Fif¬ 
teenth Street. 

After the licenses were issued I went down to the board- 

Senator Thompson. After the licenses were issued to whom? 

Mr. Peyser. I beg your pardon; these licenses were issued to 
Gerstenberg, Shoomaker, and Engel. I went down to the board and 
said “I understood this morning that Bush was to have his license.” 
The rumors around the street were that the assessor had already in¬ 
serted Bush’s name in a license, and I wanted to know the ground 
of their refusing Bush. On account of the fact of his having been there 
21 years and Engel having been there only 3 years, and the fact that 
Engel’s record was not quite as good when he ran the Hotel Engel, 
I said I did not see any reason why Bush should not have his license. 
I said “It seems to me that there is some religious prejudice in this.” 
I spoke to Bride. Bride said “Oh, no; I have no prejudices at all. 
We did not see fit to grant to Mr. Bush.” I tried to question him 
as to why. Of course he declined to tell me; and I said “It is a 
very foxy way of playing the game.” I said “Everybody ought to 
have a square deal in Washington. We are all taxpayers. I do not 
like the way things are done. I think there is some reason that is 
not on the surface, and I think the matter ought to be thoroughly 
sifted.” 

Senator Thompson. Had there been any charges against Bush 
when he conducted business previous to that time? 

Mr. Peyser. The police records as shown that day—and Mr. 
Shoemaker was there examining Bush—showed that there were no 
police charges against Bush whatsoever. He ran a saloon and he 
did not run an eating house; and I saw in the the paper-. 

Senator Thompson. How long had he run a saloon ? 

Mr. Peyser. He must have been there 17 or 18 years. 

Senator Thompson. All that time, and no charges against him ? 

Mr. Peyser. None at all. Mr. Bride said that the question of the 
financial ability of Mr. Bush and the bad financial condition of Mr. 
Engel was one of the reasons. 

The Chairman. Yes, he stated that here. 

Mr. Peyser. Yes. I will state he did not take that into con¬ 
sideration when he rejected Mr. Burdine on D Street, who had been 
in the business for a long time, and the only thing against him was 
that he was struggling hard to succeed. I represented the landlord 
in that case, the owner of the building, and I knew that Burdine 
had been running a good place and the only thing against him was 



280 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


the low character of the neighborhood; and notwithstanding that 
fact they chopped Mr. Burdine’s head off because he was financially 
embarrassed, and Mr. Engel they gave a seat of honor. I want to say 
this, that I do not belong to any antisaloon league, and I practice law 
here, and as a matter of duty I appeared for Mf. Bush, being paid for 
it. It was almost necessary for lawyers to appear down there because 
the board did not seem to comprehend the law as it ought to be 
-comprehended. 

The Chairman. We are much obliged to you, Mr. Peyser. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. PATRICK F. CARR. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your business ? 

Mr. Carr. I am in the retail liquor business at No. 3605 M Street, 
Georgetown, or West Washington. 

The Chairman. Is that the place that was outside the fire limits 
when the present law went into effect ? 

Mr. Carr. Well, now, it was inside the fire limits, the way I un¬ 
derstand, when the present law went into effect. There has been 
some contention about that. 

Senator Thompson. When was it in the fire limits ? 

Mr. Carr. When was it in ? 

Senator Thompson. Yes; when was the place in? 

Mr. Carr. T think on March 20, if I am not mistaken; but I am 
not sure that is the date. 

Senator Thompson. You mean March of last year ? 

Mr. Carr. No, March, 1914. The fire limits were extended there 
just a block the other side — to a block beyond. 

Senator Thompson. Was that or not previous to the law going 
into effect? 

Mr. Carr. Previous to the law going into effect, according to the bill. 

Senator Thompson. But the bill had passed, had it not? 

Mr. Carr. It was after the law had passed. That is what you 
mean ? 

Senator Thompson. Yes, it was after the bill had passed ? After 
the bill had passed Congress the fire limits were extended two blocks ? 

Mr. Carr. Application was made previous to that time, but it 
was on the 20th, I have learned since, that the fire limits were 
extended. 

The Chairman. What cross street are you on, Thirty-fifth or 
Thirty-seventh Street ? 

Mr. Carr. I am just above Thirty-sixth Street, at 3605 M Street. 

The Chairman. You mean that you are west of Thirty-sixth 
Street ? 

Mr. Carr. Now, pardon me; I will just make a statement to make 
your question right. I want to answer your question absolutely 
right. I do not want to make a mistake. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Carr. The hill was passed on March 4, 1913, I think. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Carr. The law was to take effect, & i it is now being contended 
in the courts, on July 1, 1913? 

The Chairman. Yes. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 281 

Mr. Carr. Between March 4 and July 1, 1913, the fire limits were 
extended—during that time. 

The Chairman. Between March 4, 1913, and the day the law went 
into effect, the fire limits were extended from Thirty-fifth to Thirty- 
seventh Street ? 

Mr. Carr. That is exactly right. 

The Chairman. And the effect of that extension was to bring you 
within the fire limits? 

Mr. Carr. Well, no; I could not say that. If that was so, I would 
answer it. 

Senator Thompson. Did that have anything to do with it? 

Mr. Carr. It had this much to do with it. For three or four 
years that matter was talked over, and they were trying to get the 
fire limits extended in that neighborhood. Capt, Schneider, if he 
was here, could make that statement. I believe there is a law on 
file in the District of Columbia, and at the present time they desire 
to have the fire limits extended. In that neighborhood around there 
for about three blocks there was quite a lot of frame buildings, and 
the District authorities did not want any more frame buildings than 
they could possibly have in the neighborhood, and the people that 
had better property there- 

The Chairman. Is it # a fact that you were west of Thirty-fifth 
Street on March 4, 1913 ? 

Mr. Carr. Yes. 

The Chairman. And at that time you were not in the fire limits ? 

Mr. Carr. No, sir. 

The Chairman. At that time you were not within, because Thirty- 
fifth Street was the limit ? 

Mr. Carr. Yes. 

The Chairman. Then, regardless of whether you had anything 
to do with it or not, when the fire limits were extended to Thirty- 
seventh Street that took you in ? 

Mr. Carr. It put us on the safe side. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Carr. Now, that is it. 

Senator Thompson. Do you know why the commissioners took 
that action at that particular time ? 

Mr. Carr. I can not say that I know why. I was very glad 
that such an attempt was being made at that time, I can say that, 
and I would have lent any assistance to it I could. 

The Chairman. Did you lend assistance to it ? 

Mr. Carr. When I was approached by a young man who had 
a petition, as I understood it, asking me to sign, I signed it. I was 
one of the signers of that petition, although there were several others 
on the petition at that time. I believe Mr. Shoemaker had his 
petition. 

The Chairman. Was it not talked over at the time you signed 
the petition, and did it not occur to you, that if the extension was 
made it would throw you within the fire limits ? 

Mr. Carr. It occurred to me long before the bill passed. I had 
read a copy of the bill, and I would have liked very much indeed 
to have been fortunate enough to have had that done, because I was 
involved to the amount of $25,000 in property there. 


282 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Thompson. You were anxious to come within the required 
limits, as you understand it? 

Mr. Carr. Yes, sir. I would have liked it very much, to have it 
done. My relatives owned property in that neighborhood. One 
particular one, a sister of mine, owns considerable of it. 

The Chairman. When you came to get a license in November was 
this point brought up against granting your license, that this exten¬ 
sion of the fire limits was made for the purpose of getting you in 
there? Was that point made at the hearing? 

Mr. Carr. I heard Mr. Shoemaker say something about it. He 
said he made a protest. 

The Chairman. Who represented you ? 

Mr. Carr. Mr. Rossa F. Downing, who is my attorney and has 
been for 20 years. 

The Chairman. Did he represent you at the hearing before the 
excise board ? 

Mr. Carr. Yes; Downing was there. 

The Chairman. Did he interrogate any of the witnesses at the 
hearing, or make any statement in your behalf ? 

Mr. Carr. I do not know that there was much interrogation. I 
think there was very little brought up at the hearing before the 
excise board. Previous to that time the, excise board, owing to 
some question by Mr. Shoemaker and others as to the legality of my 
position there, gave a public hearing to my attorney, and there were 
there, I believe, five or six attorneys, and among them the corporation 
counsel before the excise board. I think at that time Mr. Sheehy 
was chairman of the board. I am sure he was. There was a hearing 
and we proved to the satisfaction of the attorneys and the board that 
we were legally within the safe zone. I think he had a brief there of 
24 or 25 pages, and went over the law. 

Senator Yhompson. He took the position that that extension was 
made before the law went into effect, and hence you were within the 
fire limits ? 

Mr. Carr. Yes; and the same position is being now taken in the 
supreme court. 

The Chairman. When you first saw this law and observed that if 
it passed in that form you were out of the limits, you consulted your 
attorney as to how it could be changed ? 

Mr. Carr. Not at that time. I saw at that time there was a move¬ 
ment to extend the fire limits, and I hoped it would be carried. 

The Chairman. Your attorney had something to do with it? 

Mr. Carr. I do not think I ever mentioned it to my attorney at 
that time. I knew that a movement was on foot for that purpose. 

The Chairman. Did he not aid in having the limits extended so as 
to protect you ? 

Mr. Carr. My attorney? Not that I recall. If he did, I would 
be very glad to tell you, but I do not think he did. 

Senator Thompson. That would have been in the line of his 
employment, would it not ? 

Mr. Carr. It was mostly gotten up by the people who were living 
right in the neighborhood where I lived, and my friends and relatives, 
as I stated to you. There was one particular gentleman there who 
took great interest in helping me. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 283 

Senator Thompson. Your interest all the time was to be on the 
safe side so far as operating your saloon was concerned ? 

Mr. Carr. I will admit that. I would have been glad to see that 
happen because I was interested in property there, and I owned that 
piece of property. 

Senator Thompson. What did you pay your attorney for repre¬ 
senting you at that hearing ? 

Mr. Carr. I paid my attorney altogether for that, for the hearing 
and court proceeding, about $600. 

The Chairman. In connection with this? 

Mr. Carr. Yes, in connection with this, going along. 

The Chairman. What is the proceeding you refer to in court ? 

Mr. Carr. There are proceedings in court. The Old Dominion 
Railway Co. and the Antisaloon League combined, I believe—that 
is the way the bill is—have made a complaint, or in other words have 
charged, that the places there are causing an irreparable damage to 
the railroad company, due to the fact that their patrons generally 
complain against them, and the case is now in court and has been 
for about tour weeks running. 

The Chairman. How near are you to the Old Dominion station? 

Mr. Carr. Their station is on the street just around the comer, 
at Thirty-sixth and M Streets. They have been trying to acquire 
that property for quite a long time. In fact, the whole community 
knows what they are after. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. MATTHEW E. O’BRIEN. 

s 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Give your name and occupation ? 

Mr. O’Brien. Matthew E. O’Brien. Member of the bar. 

The Chairman. How long have you been a member of this bar ? 

Mr. O’Brien. Since 1908. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in the District? 

Mr. O’Brien. Since 1908. 

The Chairman. Where did you come from to this District ? 

Mr. O’Brien. Connecticut. 

The Chairman. You heard the testimony of Mr. Shoemaker as to 
what Mr. Bride said to him about certain parties making collections? 

Mr. O’Brien. I read it; I did not hear it. I was not here at the time. 

The Chairman. Did Mr. Bride say anything like that to you? 

Mr. O’Brien. Not the exact language as reported in the newspaper. 
I can tell you what Bride said. 

The Chairman. Please state it. 

Mr. O’Brien. I was counsel for the East Washington Civic Asso¬ 
ciation, and as their counsel represented them before the excise 
board in protesting against anything in this East Washington section, 
and some particular saloons. One in particular was that of Patrick J. 
MacDonald, on Pennsylvania Avenue. He applied for a transfer, 
and the testimony disclosed that he was paying, within a month of 
the end of the license year, $19,500, and at that hearing I gave notice 
that while we did not care who ran the saloon, he or the present owner, 
until the end of the present license year, at the end of that license 
year we would protest against the renewal of that license on the 


284 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


ground that it was within the prescribed limit of distance from the 
Wallach School, and also, in my opinion, within 400 feet of the home 
of the National Spiritualistic Association, which I contended was a 
religious association; and I asked Mr. MacDonald if he was willing 
to take his chance and pay this amount of money and have it trans¬ 
ferred for a month. Afterwards I had some talk with Mr. Bride 
and I got the impression from him that that transfer would not be 
granted. One evening a message came asking me to come over to 
Mr. Bride’s house, and he said “They granted that license. The 
other two outvoted me, and they granted that transfer to MacDonald, 
and unless you people do something,” he says, “I have spoken—1 
am going to speak—to Mr. Wilson and Mr. Shoemaker.” He said, 
“Unless something is done they will just roughshod over all the 
protests that you have filed. I have stated to the other members 
of the board that we would all be called grafters if this thing was 
permitted.” He said, “There was a rule of the board that no license 
could be granted, no transfer could be made, except by unanimous 
vote of the board. This afternoon they rescinded that rule.” He 
said, “I am only a nonentity on the board. The other two members 
are going to run it. If you want to protect your clients in this end 
of the city, you have got to take some action to stop it.” 

The Chairman. Did he say anything to you about anybody mak¬ 
ing collections ? 

Mr. O’Brien. No; he did not say anything about anybody making 
collections, but he said he told them that, and he told them about their 
being seen with certain representatives of brewers, Michael Keane 
and others; that they could go if they wanted to, but he would not; 
that they would all get the reputation of being grafters if they voted 
for this. 

Senator Thompson. He did not say what means should be taken 
to protect yourself ? 

Mr. O’Brien. What is that ? 

Senator Thompson. You say he used the words that you should 
take some action to protect yourself. Did he say what he meant by that ? 

Mr. O’Brien. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. What was it ? 

Mr. O’Brien. He said, “I do not think anything will stop them 
unless you are strong enough to get a congressional investigation.” 

The Chairman. We will be glad to have anything else, Mr. O’Brien, 
that you think of. 

Mr. O’Brien. Well, I think it has all been covered. I represented 
the petitioners from this section of the city, and there are several 
thousand names to a blanket remonstrance or protest against any 
licenses being granted on Capitol Hill, our contention being that the 
few places of business in any of' the blocks up here were to serve the 
wants of the immediate neighborhood, and that the whole surround¬ 
ing was residential. We have not yet gotten a decision on that. 
We had a hearing on that, but we have not up to the present time 
gotten a decision on that; except that licenses were granted. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

The Chairman. Very well. We are much obliged. Dr. Hickok, 
do you desire to take the stand ? 

Mr. Hickok. I want to do whatever the committee wants me to do, 
Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. We will be very glad to have you do so. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


285 


TESTIMONY OF REV. PAUL R. HICKOK. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman). 

The Chairman. What is your name? 

Mr. Hickok. Paul R. Hickok. 

The Chairman. What is your location and what is your vocation? 

Mr. Hickok. I am a clergyman, pastor of the Metropolitan Pres¬ 
byterian Church, at the corner of Fourth and B Streets SE. My 
residence is No. 17 Fifth Street SE. 

The Chairman. Have you had occasion to make protests before 
the excise board regarding licensing of saloons ? 

Mr. Hickok. Yes; I have appeared before the excise board as a 
protestant in probably seven or eight or nine cases; possibly more. 

The Chairman. What information can you give us with regard to 
some of those cases? 

Mr. Hickok. I think in every instance the cases in which I have 
appeared have been in the comparative neighborhood, in the com¬ 
munity I represent; that is, in or near the location of the church or 
my residence. The church and my residence are within two squares 
of each other, and it is in that general region that is represented by 
the East Washington Civic Association. 

Senator Thompson. Can you give the numbers of any places that 
you have protested against? 

Mr. Hickok. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. And the circumstances surrounding them? 

Mr. Hickok. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Just do that, if you please. 

Mr. Hickok. In the first place, there was this application for a 
transfer to a site located on the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue 
between Sixth and Seventh Streets. I believe the applicant was a 
man named MacDonald. 

Mr. O’Brien. O’Donnell. 

Mr. Hickok. MacDonald is the one farther down, is he ? 

Mr. O’Brien. No; O’Donnell is the one farther down. 

Mr. Hickok. This protest was on the one located between Third 
and Fourth, near Fourth. 

Another instance was the case of an applicant who wished to go to 
a place on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue between Third and 
Fourth, in a building where a moving picture establishment had been 
located. There was an application for a transfer onto East Capitol 
Street, on the north side, between Fourth and Fifth. 

There was another application for a transfer to the south side of 
East Capitol Street between Fourth and Fifth. 

I was going to mention the Mergner case. I am not certain that I 
did actually appear in that case. At any rate, that is perhaps suffi¬ 
cient answer to your question. 

Senator Thompson. You might state the circumstances surround¬ 
ing these particular cases and the reasons for your objection. 

Mr. Hickok. Practically every one of these cases had to do with 
saloons or proposed saloons in a general region that we regard as dis¬ 
tinctly residential. For example, this group of saloons or proposed 
saloons near the Metropolitan Presbyterian Church, of which I am 
pastor, is in a community where there are probably eight or nine 
different churches within a radius of three squares, and in one instance 


286 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

the proposition was for the location of a saloon which actually would 
have been only 8 feet from my church property; just across a narrow 
alley, actually only 8 feet away. 

Senator Thompson. You stopped that, did you? 

Mr. Hickok. Yes; that was stopped. Another instance, however, 
in which we failed, was the establishment of a saloon on the south 
side of Pennsylvania Avenue between Third and Fourth, which we 
believe is actually within the 400-foot limit indicated in the law. 

The Chairman. What place is that ? 

Mr. Hickok. Is that the place of MacDonald or of O’Donnell ? 

Mr. O’Brien. O’Donnell. 

Mr. Hickok. On the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue between 
Third and Fourth. Measuring from the nearest door of the church 
to the street, and then directly down the street by the nearest line 
of travel directly to the door of the proposed site, it was within 400 
feet. Pennsylvania Avenue and Fourth Street there make an 
acute angle, the space between being less than an angle of 90°. The 
way the distance was measured was by going clear across Pennsyl¬ 
vania Avenue on the diagonal. It did not cross Pennsylvania 
Avenue at right angles, but coming across on a diagonal to the angle 
of the acute angle, and then back, it made that distance more than 
400 feet from the nearest door of the church, which we did not then 
regard as a correct measurement, and do not now regard as a correct 
measurement. This is the place to which I think reference was 
made by Mr. O’Brien, where an enormous expenditure of money was 
made near the end of the license year in the purchase of new property 
and the erection of new buildings, all of that with only a few weeks of 
business immediately before them. 

Another case in which I was interested was that of what is known 
as the Mergner property on the south side of East Capitol Street, 
between Fourth’ and Fifth; at No. 415, I think. I am quite sure it 
was at No. 415. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hickok. Has the Mergner matter been brought up ? 

The Chairman. Yes. We will be very glad to have you speak of it. 

Mr. Hickok. Almost immediately after the law was passed, and 
of course a long time before it went into effect, I was passing this 
property—it is just around the corner from my residence—and as I 
passed there I was interested and mystified to see two fences in 
process of construction, and the particularly singular feature was 
that one of the fences came directly across the sidewalk which had 
been in common use for a great many years in front of those stores. 

Senator Thompson. This saloon happened to be the last place on 
the corner, did it not, on that block ? 

Mr. Hickok. No; the saloon is not on the corner. 

Senator Thompson. The saloon is not on the corner ? 

Mr. Hickok. No, sir; and there are two or three places of business 
between the saloon and either corner; but there is a wide space there 
between the line of businesses and the curb, between the line of stores 
and the curb, and there is one sidewalk near the curb and another 
immediately in front of the stores. These two fences were in process 
of construction, one coming from the outer sidewalk to the line of 
the inner sidewalk and the other coming from the outer sidewalk 
clear up to the building. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 287 

Senator Thompson. When was that ? 

Mr. Hickok. That was a very short time after the passage of the 
excise law. My recollection is that it was just within two or three 
weeks after the passage of the lav/, and, of course, a long time before 
it went into effect. I was mystified by it until I happened to recol¬ 
lect that just beyond my residence, at the corner of Fifth and A 
Streets SE., there is a school, and the erection of this one fence 
required that a person must go around that building instead of by 
the sidewalk which had been in use for many years, to go around 
three sides of the street, and then around by Fifth Street. 

Senator Thompson. There is an outer sidewalk there ? 

Mr. Hickok. There is an outer sidewalk as well as a sidewalk imme¬ 
diately in front of the line of stores. 

I at once wrote a letter to the officers of the Anti-Saloon League, 
telling them what was being done, and prepared just a little rough 
chart of the appearance of the situation as it was; and I know that 
was presented at the time the hearing came up before the excise 
board; and it was such a palpable subterfuge that it aroused the 
resentment of a good many there, because it served to increase the 
distance by about 70 or 80 feet, and shut off the sidewalk only on one 
side. That is, there was no attempt at all to close the sidewalk on 
the side farther from the schoolhouse, but only on the side nearer. 

The Chairman. You state that you had been going by there for 
years before that ? 

Mr. Hickok. Oh, yes. It has been an open sidewalk there all the 
while. 

Senator Thompson. It is a cement walk, is it not ? 

Mr. Hickok. Yes. 

The Chairman. And you say this fence made its appearance 
shortly before the law went into effect ? 

Mr. Hickok. Yes. 

The Chairman. There are two fences ? 

Mr. Hickok. There are two fences; one that entirely closed the 
travel over that sidewalk, and the other was left open. 

The Chairman. The other fence was open ? 

Mr. Hickok. Yes, the other fence was open. 

The Chairman. Do you mean there was a gate in it ? 

Mr. Hickok. No, sir. If you will allow me, I will demonstrate it, 
or make a drawing. 

The Chairman. What do you mean by an open fence ? 

Mr. Hickok. The fence came only to that sidewalk. There were 
two fences in process of construction. 

The Chairman. On each side of the entrance to the saloon? 

Mr. Hickok. On each side of the space immediately in front of the 
saloon. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hickok. The fence that was in process of construction on the 
east side of that space reaching from the sidewalk nearest the street 
clear back to the building, passing entirely across the sidewalk that 
was immediately in front of the line of the stores. 

The Chairman. And that was the side of the entrance nearest the 
school? 

Mr. Hickok. Nearest the schoolhouse. The fence which was in 
process of construction on the west side of that space in front of the 


288 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


saloon came from the sidewalk nearest the street just to the sidewalk 
that was nearest the line of stores. 

The Chairman. I see. 

Mr. Hickok. Just to that point. There was no gate or no remov¬ 
able fence, or anything. 

Senator Thompson. So that the stores west of the saloon would 
have the use of the sidewalk ? 

Mr. Hickok. The stores west of the saloon had the use of the side¬ 
walk. The stores east of the saloon had the use of the sidewalk just 
to that fence. 

The Chairman. All right, Doctor. Is there anything else now ? 

Mr. Hickok. I think that is all. 

The Chairman. We are very much obliged to you. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

(At 1.40 o’clock p. m. the committee took a recess until 3.30 
o’clock p. m.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION. 

The committee reassembled, pursuant to the taking of the recess, 
at 3.30 o’clock p. m. 

Present, Senators Sheppard (chairman), Thompson, and Dillingham. 

The Chairman. I desire to put in the record the following letter 
which has been sent to me: 


[James A. O’Shea, attorney at law, 412 Fifth Street NW., Century Building.] 


Washington, D. C., February 26, 1915. 

Hon. M. Sheppard, 

United States Senator, Chairman. 

Dear Sir: Having been advised that the special committee is about to close its 
hearings to-day and wishing to correct certain accusations and aspersions which have 
been cast upon the Marks Hotel and its proprietor, I would respectfully ask leave to 
submit the following which I trust may be printed in the record. 

Mr. Marks came to Washington from Baltimore, where he had held a liquor license, 
and was fortified with letters from various influential and prominent men in Baltimore 
as to his standing while in Baltimore. Mr. Marks has endeavored in every way to 
conduct his hotel according to law, and had there been any violations, or had the 
place been such as insisted by the vice squad through Lieut. Catts and Detective 
Howes, it strikes me that in justice and fairness to Mr. Marks he should have been 
convicted of any alleged violation. 

The report given by these gentlemen yesterday has received circulation through 
the newspapers and undoubtedly Mr. Marks has been placed in a false light before the 
public, and it is in order to correct this erroneous impression that this letter is addressed 
to your honorable body. 

Should the board desire letters of character and good standing as far as Mr. Marks is 
concerned and the fact that he has a good police record, that the excise board acted 
upon this police record when it reissued him his license, I should be glad to submit 
the same. 

Thanking you for your courtesy in the matter and assuring you on behalf of Mr. 
Marks that his only desire is to correct the impression coming from ex parte statements, 
I beg leave to remain, 

Very respectfully, 


James A. O’Shea. 


TESTIMONY OF MR. TIMOTHY HANLON. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your business ? 

Mr. Hanlon. I am a saloonkeeper, sir. 

The Chairman. At what place ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 289 

Mr. Hanlon. 822 H Street NE. 

The Chairman. When did you transfer to that place? 

Mr. Hanlon. My transfer was granted Christmas Eve, I think; 
around there. 

The Chairman. Last Christmas Eve? 

Mr. Hanlon. A year ago. 

The Chairman. From what place did you transfer ? 

Mr. Hanlon. From Thirteenth and H Streets NE.; the northeast 
corner of Thirteenth and H. 

The Chairman. Was that near Wylie Court ? 

Mr. Hanlon. It was about 150 or 160 feet from Wylie Court. 

The Chairman. Your place is a corner place now, is it not? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes. 

The Chairman. What was the house used for before you took it? 

Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Reagan used it before me, for a private house. 
He had a plumbing place in the back. 

The Chairman. He had a plumbing place in the back and lived in 
the front ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes, sir; and lived in the front. 

The Chairman. What did it cost you to rearrange the place for a 
saloon and put your bar in ? 

Mr. Hanlon. It cost me about $3,500. 

The Chairman. What did it cost you, altogether, to move and 
locate there ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Well, not very much over that. It upset me, 
leaving my place and coming down there. I should think that I 
lost a great deal by leaving Thirteenth and H Streets and coming 
down there. 

The Chairman. Is that a better stand for a saloon than your 
other place ? 

Mr. Hanlon. I do not think so. 

The Chairman. You do not think so ? 

Mr. Hanlon. I do not think so. 

The Chairman. Why did you transfer from it ? 

Mr. Hanlon. I thought I was really affected by the location of a 
cooking school in the middle of the square. 

The Chairman. What kind of a school ? 

Mr. Hanlon. A cooking school. 

The Chairman. Who told you that that would affect you ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Nobody, only that I knew the school was there 
for some time myself, and I didn’t want to take no chance, because 
I wanted to get in. 

The Chairman. Did you consult a lawyer ? 

Mr. Hanlon. No. I went to see the excise board about it. 

The Chairman. About transferring ? 

Mr. Hanlon. No, about what attitude they would take toward 
the neighborhood. 

The Chairman. Toward the neighborhood and the school there? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes. 

The Chairman. What did they say? 

Mr. Hanlon. They didn’t give me any decided answer. They 
told me the time would come when I would be heard on the case. I 
didn’t want to take no chance. 


290 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

The Chairman. Did you buy this place before you made applica¬ 
tion for a transfer ? 

Mr. Hanlon. No, sir; I am just renting that place. 

The Chairman. You are just renting that place? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you make your lease and refit the place before 
you got a transfer ? 

Mr. Hanlon. I got a lease for five years with the privilege of five 
more. 

The Chairman. Before you asked for a transfer? 

Mr. Hanlon. Well, no; that was under the conditions that I should 
get my transfer. 

* The Chairman. Were you represented by a lawyer in securing 
the transfer? 

Mr. Hanlon. I was, sir. 

The Chairman. Who was your lawyer ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Mangan represented me at my first hearing, and 
Mr. Keane at my renewal. 

The Chairman. The renewal last November? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What did you pay Mr. Mangan? 

Mr. Hanlon. $50. 

The Chairman. $50 to secure your transfer? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Was that a retainer? 

Mr. Hanlon. Just a fee. 

The Chairman. Just a straight fee to represent you whether you 
won or not ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What was Mr. Keane’s fee ? 

Mr. Hanlon. He charged me the same. 

The Chairman. And did you consider that you would need a 
lawyer to secure a renewal of your license there ? 

Mr. Hanlon. I did, sir. 

The Chairman. Were there any protests against the renewal ? 
Was that why you felt you needed a lawyer? 

Mr. Hanlon. No, sir; I considered that the Anti-Saloon League 
had a lawyer fighting all those applications, and I thought it was neces¬ 
sary for me to have a lawyer to represent me. Sir. Shoemaker 
represented the Anti-Saloon League, and I couldn’t really talk to Mr. 
Shoemaker like my lawyer would, so that I thought my business was 
worthy of a lawyer to represent me before the board. 

The Chairman. Was there a church near you when you went 
over there? 

Mr. Hanlon. What church, sir? 

The Chairman. Was there any church in the neighborhood? 

Mr. Hanlon. Not that I knew of. There was a little mission 
started up across the street when I made application there. That 
was started by a gentleman named Mr. Green. He started a little 
mission there, and placed the antisaloon placards there just at the 
time I had made application. 

The Chairman. Was it not a Jewish synagogue that started over 
there ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


291 


Mr. Hanlon. There was a little organization — I don’t know 
whether it was a synagogue or not—at the time, of about 12 or 15 
men that came there. They had for their president Mr. Fedder- 
man, who was a wholesale liquor dealer, and they had come to me 
in the meantime and asked me if I would give them a little donation 
to buy a location for a church, and I refused them any donation. 
I told them no. At the time, the organization was over a tailor 
shop in Ninth Street. They had one room there. 

The Chairman. Have they not since built a synagogue somewhere 
else? 

Mr. Hanlon. At a church property that Dr. Swem owned at Eighth 
and I Streets. 

The Chairman. They did locate there finally? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes, sir. Dr. Swem did not think it was big enough 
for his congregation, and he purchased a place between Sixth and 
Seventh Streets. That is now located in the Northeast Temple; 
and they decided to buy that and occupy it a short while ago. 

The Chairman. The Northeast Temple? 

Mr. Hanlon. No, sir; but Dr. Swem’s church is at Eighth and I 
Streets. 

The Chairman. I thought you said they finally landed in the 
temple. 

Mr. Hanlon. Dr. Swem is located temporarily there—in the 
temple. 

The Chairman. While his church is building, he is located tempo¬ 
rarily in the temple ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is all, unless you want to say something 
more. 

Mr. Hanlon. The only real protest that I heard of against me was 
by my neighbor, Dr. Cole. I would like to state a few little facts about 
the matter. 

The Chairman. Just sit down and state them. You have a right 
to state anything you please. 

Mr. Hanlon. It seems to me that Dr. Cole was the first person that 
aroused my curiosity about that neighborhood, in getting my license 
transferred, through his agent, Mr. Kennedy. He sent him to me, 
and Mr. Kennedy encouraged me to think that Mr. Hettinger, Mr. 
Brahler, Mr. Ross, and several other saloon keepers who it was a 
possibility would be affected by the law, were after Dr. Cole’s prop¬ 
erty for a saloon. These are the talks that came to me about it. I 
did not worry any about it, because I took my time. Dr. Cole spoke 
against me yesterday, and that was a piece of malice upon his part, 
for the simple reason that after my license was transferred Dr. Cole 
came to me with my attorney, Mr. De Lacey, who will corroborate 
this statement, and he said, “You have made a mistake.” He says, 
“That place is too small for your business. You need a place like 
mine,” nesays. I says, “It is too late now, Doctor.” He says, “It 
is not late yet. You can do it yet.” So that I said no more about it. 

I was sitting in the parlor, in the front room, you know, when he says, 
“Mr. Hanlon, I am awful sorry you are affected by the law, and,” he 
says, “it is a nice place for a barroom.” He says, “I am particu¬ 
larly connected with the District officials, and I have no doubt I can 
help you out in getting a license.” I said, “Will you g around the 

84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3-20 


292 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

neighborhood with me and see how they are situated toward a saloon 
in the neighborhood?” He says, “No; I will not do anything like 
that; but,” he says, “I am particularly connected with the officials of 
the District, and I can do you a lot of good. We are all with you 
here.” He says, “Every man in the square is a drinking man. It is 
a wet square.” 

The Chairman. He said, “We are all wet men ” ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes, sir. He says, “It is a wet square. We are all 
drinking men, and there is no reason why you can not get a license.” 

The Chairman. Was that before you got your transfer? 

Mr. Hanlon. That was, and I had no idea of going in that neigh¬ 
borhood. I got the idea of going up there from Mr. Kennedy letting 
me know about that. That is all I have to say about that. 

I was out front, speaking with a friend of mine who is a policeman, 
out there, and a policeman in the ninth precinct, and he came up and 
slapped this policeman on the back, and he says, “You might as well 
talk to this man all you want to now, because we will be losing him 
soon. Dr. Cole says all he is going to live for in this world now is 
to see Mr. Hanlon put out of business in that barroom next to him.” 
I took the thing serious, and I said, “Will you testify to that, Mr. 
Beach?” He says, “I certainly will.” I was standing at the corner 
of Fifteenth and H Streets, myself and Mr. Hayden, and he came 
up, and he says those words. So that Mr. Beach says, “Mr. Hanlon 
seems to be a good fellow, a law-abiding citizen,” and he says, “We 
have a right to protect him all we can. This evidence might do him 
some good some way,” and he says, “You remember that, Hayden.” 
“All right,” says Mr. Hayden. So that he will gladly come here. 

Dr. Cole says there are no police officers in the ninth precinct. I 
fancy there are very efficient officers in that precinct, because they 
have kept me under their eye pretty close, and I have lived under 
the law, by the law, as close as possible, and done my best to meet 
the conditions of the business to the best of my ability. I have no 
mark against me in the 25 years I have been in the business. 

The Chairman. There is no mark against you in the police court ? 

Mr. Hanlon. No, sir; nothing in the police court, and nobody 
ever had occasion to call me down for anything. 

The Chairman. How long had you been in business at the other 
place ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Thirty months. 

The Chairman. Before that what were you doing ? 

Mr. Hanlon. I was at Pennsylvania Avenue, No. 1004, between 
Tenth and Eleventh Streets. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in the barroom business ? 

Mr. Hanlon. About nine years ? 

The Chairman. Are you a native of the District, or did you come 
here from some other State ? 

Mr. Hanlon. I have been 15 years in the District of Columbia. 

The Chairman. From what other State did you come here ? 

Mr. Hanlon. I came to the District. 

The Chairman. From where ? 

Mr. Hanlon. I was an attendant at the Government Hospital for 
the Insane. 

The Chairman. From what country did you come? 

Mr. Hanlon. I came from Ireland here. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


293 


1 he Chairman. From Ireland straight to the District of Columbia? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. From Tipperary ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Not exactly; from Killarney. That is all I have to 
say, Mr. Sheppard. 

The Chairman. All right. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF REV. JOHN MacMTJRRAY. 

(The witness w T as sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your location and calling, Doctor? 

Mr. MacMurray. I am pastor of the Union Methodist Episcopal 
Church, 814 Twentieth Street, NW. It is near Pennsylvania Avenue. 

The Chairman. Will you give your experiences with the excise 
board, if you have had any, or with the granting of saloon licenses, 
or with their renewal or transfer? 

Mr. MacMurray. May I just say a word or two in parenthesis? 

The Chairman. Just take your own time about it. 

Mr. MacMurray. For 20 or 25 years, ever since I have had very 
much to say about it, I have been opposed to saloons in one form or 
another. In Plainfield, N. J., I worked to secure a high license and re¬ 
stricted territory—that is, having the saloons put out of the residential 
section—which I did with some success in Jersey City, as Gen. Smith 
knows, and when I came to Washington I thought I would have abso¬ 
lutely nothing to do with saloons at all, because I thought I had had 
enough of it; but I had not been here very long before the people of 
our church and members of the Woman’s Christian Temperance 
Union asked me to see the excise board in regard to the transfer of 
Mr. Walsh down on Pennsylvania Avenue, and to oppose the transfer 
on the ground that Pennsylvania Avenue between Twenty-first and 
Twenty-second Streets is not a strictly business section, but rather 
residential. Really Pennsylvania Avenue, I have been told by the 
board, has been declared to be a business section, but it is a question 
of whether or not there are not just as many residences there as 
there are business places. At any rate, investigating it, I found that 
over the stores, which are what one might call valet stores—I call 
them that because they are shoe-repairing places and places of that 
sort, and in only one instance, at the corner of Twenty-first and Penn¬ 
sylvania Avenue, is there anything like business done outside of the 
people who live in the community, of that kind. Of course there are 
tailor shops and there may possibly be one or two dressmaking estab¬ 
lishments, but in most cases the people live in the building where the 
business is done and are using the front part for business and the back 
part for residence, and over the places are two or three stories, and 
people are living there. I protested to the board against that, and 
I said that they ought not to grant the license for this saloon to Mr. 
Walsh there because it was in a residential section of the city, with 
residences all around except just simply on Pennsylvania Avenue; 
and possibly on K Street between Twentieth and Twenty-first Streets, 
nothing but residences and these small tradesmen’s businesses that 
are in a residence section and not a business section. It is a place 
in which I think the law ought to be interpreted to make the neigh¬ 
borhood a residence section. 


294 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Senator Thompson. Were 50 per cent of the buildings in the same 
block business ? 

Mr. MacMurray. I understand that is a very close estimate. I 
understand from Mr. Shoemaker that he finds that less than 50 per 
cent is business; but the police captains reported as a result of the 
investigation that 50 per cent was. But I have told you the nature 
of the business that is there, what you might call valet service for 
the people who live there; that is, where you get barbering done, or 
get your shoes repaired, or get your coat pressed, or something of 
that sort. I say that is valet service, and is not business the same 
as a shoe store would be where they sell shoes or do other business 
of that kind. That is the way in which I have been taught to regard 
a business section, as a place where business is done and not where 
mere service of that kind is rendered; because if you begin that way, 
every boarding house and every dressmaking establishment and 
every millinery establishment would be classed as business, and you 
might get up a little business street in that way; but I do not regard 
that so, at all, and in that sense, I do not regard the block between 
Twenty-first and Twenty-second Streets as a business street. But 
Mr. Shoemaker tells me that even under those circumstances it is 
just a question of whether there are 50 per cent of those places that 
are taken up with business. 

I protested against that before the board, and at the same time 
there were people who lived right next to the saloon of Walsh which 
was located there, who owned the property, who protested to the 
board that the location of the saloon there would be a great damage 
to them, and it seemed as if the protest ought to be very strong and 
ought to be regarded, because there was no demand for the saloon. 
Nobody petitioned for it, but people did oppose it. People who 
owned property right next to the location of the proposed saloon 
opposed it. The license for that saloon was granted. 

The Chairman. Was that transferred from somewhere else? 

Mr. MacMurray. Yes; it was transferred from Twenty-first and 
K Streets, or off down there. He wanted it transferred because the 
new law going into effect on November 1 would touch him and force 
him to move, and he wanted to locate there when there was an 
opportunity to do so. 

The Chairman. Why would the new law affect him in his old place ? 

Mr. MacMurray. Mr. Shoemaker can tell you that better than I. 
I have been here comparatively a short time and there are certain 
conditions that I have been unable to study out. 

The Chairman. I understand it was a residence section, also ? 

Mr. MacMurray. Yes; probably that is it. I understand that all 
of that is really a residence section. 

The Chairman. How many people joined you in making this pro¬ 
test on the ground that it was a residence section ? 

Mr. MacMurray. So far as the Walsh case is concerned? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. MacMurray. I could not tell you now, because I did not take 
the precaution at the time to count up the number. We thought it 
was sufficient to have protests from people who owned property in 
that vicinity. 

The Chairman. What proportion of the people in that vicinity 
did you have? 


EXCISE BOARD OE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


295 


Mr. MacMurray. I do not believe I could tell you even that. 

The Chairman. Was it a large number? 

Mr. MacMurray. Yes. 

The Chairman. Comparatively ? 

Mr. MacMurray. Yes, comparatively a large number. Some 
appeared before the board in protest, and others did not appear 
because they said it was scarcely worth while to appear before the 
board, “Because/’ they said, "we will be turned down; we will be 
browbeaten by some lawyer of the opposing side,” or “it is no use to 
take our time to go down there under the circumstances to make a 
protest”; and of course they did not care to go. Others did not 
want to go because they said “If we go down there and protest we 
will be marked men, and our business will suffer in consequence.” 
I have had experience enough so that I know enough not to submit a 
business man to anything of that kind. If he goes in and testifies he 
suffers in some way; otherwise the number protesting would be very 
much larger. 

The Chairman. Was that the only ground of protest in that case? 

Mr. MacMurray. That was all; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What other place did you say you had had experi¬ 
ence with ? 

Mr. MacMurray. I also had experience with a place that has been 
licensed by the board as a wholesale place; the place of Mr. Henry, 
a grocery store. I protested against that because I thought it was 
within 400 feet of our church, and the board remeasured it after I 
made the protest and found that it came within the 400-foot limit. 
Before that it did not come within the 400-foot limit because, by a 
process of measurement which this or some other board had instituted, 
they made the measurement 450 feet. That was not a right-angle 
measurement, but it was a very peculiar measurement. I will try 
to explain how the measurement took place. Pennsylvania Avenue 
runs diagonally by our place, and it passes Twenty-first Street up to 
Twenty-second Street, and it runs in a diagonal direction. 

Senator Thompson. When was this measurement made ? 

Mr. MacMurray. This measurement was made by Mr. Bride. It 
must have been made by the board in 1913, or at least that measure¬ 
ment accepted by them; else the place would not have been licensed 
at that time. There is a provision of the law that forbids the putting 
of a place of that kind within 400 feet of a church. The measure¬ 
ment, of course, on Pennsylvania Avenue runs diagonally. 

Senator Thompson. Did you see that measurement? 

Mr. MacMurray. I did not see the process of measurement, but I 
saw the process of the measurement that was made perhaps not by 
the board but by those who wanted to be sure that the measurement 
was accurate. Mr. Henry explained to me the process of measure¬ 
ment by which he reached 450 feet. He measured up Pennsylvania 
Avenue, up to just a little park we have there on the corner of Twen¬ 
tieth and Pennsylvania Avenue, and then measuring down in front 
of our church. Of course that was altogether out of the way as far 
as the measurement was concerned. It was not even on a straight 
line, and I called the attention of the board to the fact that by any¬ 
thing like not even an air-line measurement or anything of that kind, 
Mr. Henry’s place was within 400 feet of the church, and I think 


296 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


there was inclined to be a little protest against it. Anyway, the meas¬ 
urement was made and they found that it was within 400 feet. 

Senator Thompson. They refused the license, then ? 

Mr. MacMurray. They refused a wholesale license, and Mr. Henry 
bought a place which I do not think is more than 50 feet farther 
down on Pennsylvania Avenue, farther away from our church. I 
hold that according to the measurement, making a proper interpreta¬ 
tion of the law as I found it in other places, Henry’s place is still 
within 400 feet of our church. I do not know that without a dia¬ 
gram I can explain to you what I mean. 

The Chairman. Have you actually made a measurement? 

Mr. MacMurray. I have not made it by line. I have paced it off, 
and it has been made by line by others. 

Senator Thompson. We have a plat here. 

Mr. MAcMurray. Have you a plat with regard to the Harvey case, 
Mr. Hart? 

Mr. Hart. It is not here; I will get it for you if you care to have it. 

Mr. MacMurray. By the way in which men walk or can walk 
undisturbed by anything that prevents them, walking entirely on 
property which belongs to the District of Columbia, it is possible to 
get from the front of our church to the front of Mr. Henry’s store, 
at the present place where he has a license, in less than 400 feet. 

Senator Thompson. How many feet do you make it to be ? 

Mr. MacMurray. It is just a little over 300 feet; it may be 310 or 
320 feet. 

The Chairman. Did you protest against that place ? 

Mr. MacMurray. Yes, sir; on the ground that even the new place 
was within the 400-foot limit of the church. • 

The Chairman. Did they measure that? 

Mr. MacMurray. I do not know whether the board measured it or 
not. I only know that the board granted the application and Henry 
received his license. 

There is another case. I do not care about saying very much 
about it, because I am very friendly disposed toward Mr. Harvey, 
and therefore I did not enter into any protest against his license; but 
that is one of the cases under consideration at the present time. 
Measurements have been made showing that Mr. Harvey’s place is 
within 340 feet of our church. Mr. Henry’s place is nearer the 
church than Mr. Harvey’s place is, so that if Mr. Harvey’s measure¬ 
ment is 340 feet, Mr. Henry’s place is less than that. 

The Chairman. What kind of place is Mr. Harvey’s? 

Mr. MacMurray. Harvey has a restaurant, and I want to say that 
if all places were run as Harvey’s is run, I do not think there would 
be any opposition to them at all. The only ground of opposition to 
that place is that it happens to be within 400 feet of our church; 
something that we are not responsible for, but it is within the 400- 
foot limit. 

Senator Thompson. Could you not move the church ? 

Mr. MacMurray. I think we have been thinking a little bit about 
that. It is a case of Mr. Harvey being obliged to leave or our being 
obliged to leave, I am afraid. We did not protest against that, 
because the case seemed to be so clear that he was within the 400-foot 
limit. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


297 


Another case which I protested was the case of Michael Raftery. 
He may be outside of the 400-foot limit from the three churches that 
are there. There is the Nineteenth Street Baptist Church, on Nine¬ 
teenth and I, and there is the Western Presbyterian Church, which 
is just exactly back of Raftery’s saloon, and I think by proper 
measurement would probably come within the 400 feet. It is possi¬ 
ble that it is very close to the 400-foot limit of our church. But the 
ground on which I protested against Raftery was, first, that our 
section is a residential section; in the second place, it was that the 
saloon itself now occupied by Raftery was formerly occupied by 
Donovan, and Donovan did not apply for renewal of his license. 
He closed up his place a month or two before the expiration of his 
license, because it did not pay. Mr. Donovan said that it did not 
pay. He voluntarily went out of business. He said, “It is not 
worth while for me to ask for a renewal of license.’’ The man who 
preceded Donovan gave up his license because it did not pay him 
there. We therefore protested on the ground that the saloon was 
not needed there under the circumstances. Mr. Raftery had been 
transferred from some place east. I do not know just exactly where 
he was, but he was transferred to the corner of Twentieth and E 
Streets. I do not know how he came to be transferred from where 
he was to Twentieth and E Streets, because right across from the 
former location of Raftery’s, at Twentieth and E Streets, there is a 
colored Baptist church, which was established there in 1913. Mr. 
Raftery was transferred to Twentieth and E Streets, I understand, 
on May 14. I do not know how the transfer was made, but it seemed 
to me it was illegal, because this Baptist church is right across from 
the point to which Raftery has been transferred. Raftery’s location, 
of course, was in a residential section, although on a business block. 
E Street between Nineteenth and Twentieth has been said by the 
board to be a business block, and therefore possibly under the*cir¬ 
cumstances Mr. Raftery had a right to stay there. I hold that if 
the board said that Raftery could not stay at Twentieth and E 
Streets because the block between Nineteenth and Twentieth Streets, 
although a business block, was in a residence section, and therefore 
ought to be considered as a part of the residential section, and the 
fact that that was not a business block was ignored when that was 
the ground of their contention—I hold that the contention as to the 
block between Twenty-first and Twenty-second on Pennsylvania 
Avenue likewise holds true, because that is equally in a residence 
section, and also possibly as to the block between Seventeenth and 
Eighteenth Streets. Between Eighteenth and Nineteenth Streets on 
Pennsylvania Avenue are two parks, and therefore that is not busi¬ 
ness. Beyond Twenty-second Street Pennsylvania Avenue is strictiv 
residential, so that the point of contention is whether the block 
between Twenty-first and Twenty-second Streets might be properly 
considered a business block in the sense that saloons should be 
allowed there. We hold that it ought not to be thus considered. 
We opposed Raftery because the saloon that had been given up by 
Donovan—nobody had applied for a license for that place and it 
was evidently not paying, and no one seemed to talk of taking the 
place. It belonged to the Abner-Drury brewing concern. 

After 297 licenses were granted and the three remaining ones 
were to be granted we understood that the Miller Bros, applied for 


298 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

one of those three. We understood that another man somewhere 
east of us applied for another, and we were very much surprised to 
find that Michael Raftery had applied for one of the remaining 
licenses. He had been refused one at Twentieth and E Streets. It 
could not have been because of a residential question raised, because 
he was on a business block. I can not understand it. That is one 
of the mysterious things I can not understand. I have my own 
ideas of the situation. I do not know that I care to express them 
publicly, but I was told that Mr. Raftery was asked to consent to 
allow his license to be not renewed, and that if he could find a fit 
location against which no objection could be placed he would be 
granted a license. I do not think I am divulging any secret when I 
say I was informed that at a meeting of the board that if Raftery 
would not apply for renewal of his license at Twentieth and E 
Streets, if a proper location could be found against which no objec¬ 
tion could be made, his license would be granted. We did not know 
that an attempt would be made to start a saloon in Donovan’s place 
until one day I saw a representative of the board come up there with 
a measuring line and measure from the Western Presbyterian Church 
and our place and the Baptist Church to the saloon at that time 
occupied by Donovan; and, knowing what I did, I came to the con¬ 
clusion that possibly that was a part of the deal, and if they could 
find that Donovan’s saloon was outside the range of 400 feet from 
our three churches the license would be granted; but it seemed to 
me to be an outrage under the circumstances, because Mr. Raftery 
has as his patronage out at Twentieth and E Streets a large percent¬ 
age of colored people. His new location would be about four or five 
blocks from his old location. The natural thing for us to conclude 
would be that at least part of his patronage there would follow him 
up to his new location between Nineteenth and Twentieth Streets. 
Personally I objected to that because it would bring by our houses— 
and that has been verified by the result—on Twentieth Street, from 
his saloon on Pennsylvania Avenue between Nineteenth and Twen¬ 
tieth Streets, drunken negroes. 

The Chairman. You mean by your houses, or by the churches? 

Mr. MacMurray. By our homes. I did not care to have either 
drunken white men or drunken negroes coming by our place singing 
ribald songs at 1 and 2 and 3 o’clock at night, disturbing the rest at 
our own home, not to say anything about people living in our neigh¬ 
borhood. That thing is being done more or less. I protested to the 
board under the circumstances, and I also stated that I could see no 
reason why Michael Raftery should receive a license, unless it was 
simply to obey the behests of the brewing and liquor interests. The 
building now occupied by Raftery is a building owned by the Abner- 
Drury Brewing Co., or at least it is held in the name of Drury, and 
the lawyer who came before the board to advocate the granting of a 
license for Raftery, I understand, is the attorney for the Abner-Drury 
Brewing Co. 

Senator Thompson. Who is he ? 

Mr. MacMurray. Mr. Keane. Likewise it seemed to me that Mr. 
Raftery was nothing more or less than an agent or representative of 
the Abner-Drury Co. for the sale of their beer, or whatever distilled 
liquors they had a mind to allow in that building. I protested to 
the board and stated that I did not think that Congress in passing 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 299 

this law intended that the excise board should be the agent for any 
brewing company or liquor interests in furthering their interests, and 
that is what it would amount to, that the Abner-Drury Brewing Co. 
might have another depot for the sale of its products, and also that 
the liquor interests might have another depot for the sale of distilled 
liquors. I made the protest just as strong as I possibly could. I did 
that because I was requested to do so by the officials of our church, 
and I also represented others. You know how it is. The honorable 
members of this committee know that there are a multitude of people 
who, if they can find a mouthpiece, are willing to put everything upon 
him, and we are just simply flooded with requests to present their 
side where it can be heard. As a clergyman, I find that. When I 
came down this morning on the car a woman came to me and said, 
“If you have anything to say in behalf of our community to rid us of 
the saloons, I wish you would.” Then she went on and cited the 
case of her own family, where it was touched. She knew that I was 
a minister and that I might have an opportunity to say something 
before this committee, or if I did not, that I might have an opportu¬ 
nity to say it to the press, or that I would have the opportunity to 
say it from the pulpit. People are coming to see me at my home 
asking me to do something for that section toward cleaning it up. 
That is the reason I have been interested in it, why I was interested 
in it before I came here and have been interested in it ever since. 

I appeared before the board of excise a large number of times in 
regard to all those places in that section, because we wanted to clean 
it up. I want to say that I have received good treatment generally 
on the part of the board, I have not any fault to find with the treat¬ 
ment that I have received; but it is a case of their being very nice, 
and going on and doing what they feel like doing. I have come to 
the conclusion, I think very properly, Senator—I have come to feel— 
that they were a set of puppets m the hands of interests stronger than 
they are, either the liquor interests or political interests, or backed 
by the liquor interests of the country, and that they were not able to 
do the things that they wanted to do. I want to give them credit 
for that much, that I think they are all good men; but I think they 
can not do the things they want to do and would like to do. 

The Chairman. Anything else, doctor, we would be glad to have? 

Mr. MacMtjrray. 1 have some other things, but I do not care to 
take up the time of this honorable committee with them. 

Senator Thompson. You have covered the ground in your protests ? 

Mr. MacMurray. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Have you entered any petitions when you 
made these protests ? 

Mr. MacMurray. No; I have not. 

Senator Thompson. You did not present any petitions to the 
board ? 

Mr. MacMurray. No; I did not, because other agencies did that. 
The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union got up petitions and 
presented them to the board. I myself wrote a personal letter in 
every case to the board in behalf of our church. 

Senator Thompson. There were petitions of protest in these cases ? 

Mr. MacMurray. Yes; and I represented our church, the con¬ 
stituency of which lives in that immediate neighborhood. 

Senator Thompson. You made a statement before the board? 


300 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. MacMurray. Yes, in each case; and I think the public press 
will bear out that statement, because there were some items in the 
press in regard to the way in which I was turned down by the board. 
I want to say, too, that I have no feeling of malice toward the board; 
I have the highest respect for them, and if there was any way at all 
in which I could avoid saying the things I am forced to say, I would 
not do it; but I simply can not do it. The people of our community 
are after me to try to do something to clean up that community. It 
is a residential section, and we do not want the saloons up there, 
because you know what they stand for as well as I do. We have 
had some of the saloons cleaned out there; and some real estate people 
have said to me that property values are increasing as the result of 
the cleaning out of those saloons. I hope there will be some more of 
the same kind. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN T. COLE (Resumed). 

The Chairman. You heard the testimony of Mr. Hanlon? 

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed in your way to make any comment that 
may occur to you. 

Mr. Cole. I wish to disabuse Mr. Hanlon’s mind of any idea of 
there being any malice in my remarks here yesterday. I was not 
after Mr. Hanlon. But I am not so easy as the doctor who gave such 
a pleasant recitation just now. I am after the excise board, not 
Mr. Hanlon. I object to the saloon being next to my home and 
office. As to negotiations pending for my property through Mr. 
Hanlon, when the Jones-Works bill was passed it was rumored around 
the neighborhood that that would be a wet block, and I had numerous 
demands over the telephone as to the price of my property, and to 
know if I would sell. When I learned that the liquor people were 
after locations, I then thought of selling, to get out of it. It wound 
up by applications for licenses on either side of me, one at No. 818—I 
live at No. 820—and Mr. Hanlon’s place is No. 822. If I could have 
sold at that time, I would have sold. That has all been covered at 
both hearings. There is no secret about it. But what I do want to 
emphasize is that I have no malicious feeling toward Mr. Hanlon. 

The Chairman. Your object in wanting to sell was to get out of the 
vicinity into which you felt a saloon was coming; was that the idea? 

Mr. Cole. I was afraid of it, and it has been a thorn in my side 
ever since I have been there. That is about all I have to say in regard 
to it. 

The Chairman. Very well, sir. 

Gen. Smith, would you mind taking the stand again for a few 
minutes ? Senator Thompson wants some information about a place 
at the corner of Fourteenth and U Streets. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT G. SMITH (Resumed). 

Senator Thompson. General, you were asked yesterday about 
saloon places where intoxicating liquor was sold in the city under 
license. Do you know of any double doors or double arrangements 
where liquor is sold under a single license in such places ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 301 

Mr. Smith. You have just mentioned the place at Fourteenth 
and U. 

Senator Thompson. You know of that place? 

Mr. Smith. That is a half circular bar, and the colored are served 
on one side and the whites on the other; an arrangement that seems 
better than to have them mixed at the one bar. 

Senator Thompson. There are two buildings there, are there not— 
two entrances ? 

Mr. Smith. There is only one entrance now. 

Senator Thompson. That is No. 1942-1944. That is right, is it 
not? 

Mr. Smith. I think it is No. 1942. 

Senator Thompson. There is just one license, anyhow, to O’Hanlon 
& O’Connor? 

Mr. Smith. There is one license and one barroom. 

Senator Thompson. The fact is that there are two rooms ? 

Mr. Smith. It is all one room. 

Senator Thompson. And there was at one time a solid partition 
between the two, and there is an opening ? 

Mr. Smith. It is not used now. 

Senator Thompson. That is the way it was originally? 

Mr. Smith. It may have been. I have never seen it. 

Senator Thompson. Anyhow, there is an opening to accommodate 
a bar for the two rooms ? 

Mr. Smith. The wall is where it used to be, 1 presume. 

Senator Thompson. Do you not remember about the bar running 
on both sides of that center partition ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. And around through the opening? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. That would really be a bar in two rooms ? 

Mr. Smith. A bar in two rooms, if you will have it so. 

Senator Thompson. Is it not a fact? I just wanted to know what 
the truth of it was. Do you know of any other place like that in the 
city? 

Mr. Smith. Yes; I do. 

Senator Thompson. Where else? 

Mr. Smith. At the corner of Fourteenth and Rhode Island Avenue. 

Senator Thompson. That is the John F. Manahan Co. ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

The Chairman. They have a similar arrangement there? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. What is the situation there as to the building ? 

Mr. Smith. One room with a circular bar, or a half circular bar; 
whites on one side and colored on the other. That is, according to 
our inspection. I do not know- 

Senator Thompson. They draw the color line in the saloon business 
sometimes ? 

Mr. Smith. They try to do that in some places. 

Senator Thompson. Do you know of any other places, general? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall any. 

The Chairman. Do you remember how many restaurant licenses, 
or what you call restaurant licenses, have been issued ? 

Mr. Smith. Fifty-one. 



302 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Senator Thompson. Generally, where a restaurant license is issued 
it indicates both a bar and sale at the tables, does it not, or in the 
restaurant ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. The restaurant licenses entitles the holder to 
serve intoxicating liquors at a bar or in the dining room only. 

Senator Thompson. Under the law are there not simply two 
licenses, what you call a barroom license and a wholesale license ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. How do you make that distinction ? 

Mr. Smith. But there is a paragraph that provides for the recog¬ 
nition of restaurant establishments, if after the inspection the excise 
board sees fit to- 

Senator Thompson. That is in connection with the bar ? 

Mr. Smith. Oh, yes. Why should the excise board be interested 
in an establishment that does not sell liquors ? 

Senator Thompson. I beg your pardon; I did not understand. 

Mr. Smith. I say the excise board would have no authority over 
an establishment that did not sell liquor. 

Senator Thompson. I was trying to get at whether it was a distinc¬ 
tion that you had made by your rules, or how it was arrived at. The 
law seems to indicate two kinds of license, one a barroom license and 
the other a wholesale license. The board, as I understand it, makes 
another subdivision and calls one of theTicenses a restaurant license, 
which includes both barroom and restaurant. 

Mr. Smith. No; I think paragraph 14 will bear me out. 

Senator Thompson. It may be. You say paragraph 14 authorizes 
that ? Section 14 of your rules says (reading): 

Sec. 14. There shall be three classes of barroom licenses, as follows - 

That is simply a rule of the board, is it not ? 

Mr. Smith. No; I am looking for- 

Senator Thompson. Anyway, there is what you call a restaurant 
license to which is usually attached a barroom, is there not ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. When I say 51, I mean 51 licensed restaurants 
with the privilege of dispensing intoxicating liquors. 

Senator Thompson. As a restaurant and as a bar ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. It indicates in most places two places where 
the liquor is sold or used or drunk ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. That is all. 

Mr. Smith. Thank you. ‘ 

Senator Thompson. If there is any statement you have to make 
we will be glad to hear it. 

Mr. Smith. I am an unfortunate culprit before this august body, 
and it does not seem fair for a gentleman, particularly one of the cloth, 
to come here and malign, abuse, and scandalize. I am surprised that 
a man of his clQth would do such a thing, and afterwards meagerly 
apologize for it. What did he say they were—puppets? 

Senator Thompson. No; he was giving simply his final conclusion. 

Mr. Smith. No; he was referring to the members of the board; and 
I think I might have had one champion on the committee who would 
ask that that be taken back. 

The Chairman. You said about as much as he did, so that you 
have got no kick coming. 




EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 303 

Mr. Smith. Well, if we stand even here, I am satisfied so long as we 
are even. 

Senator Thompson. We regard what he said as only a personal 
opinion. 

The Chairman. Yes. You will have your opportunity, General. 

Mr. Smith. I still have the opportunity of answering, have I not ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Smith. Thank you. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

The Chairman. The committee is going to stand adjourned now, 
so far as the taking of testimony is concerned, until 10.30 o’clock, 
Monday morning, and if at that time anybody wishes to be heard 
in rebuttal of anything that has been said, or regarding anything 
else in connection with this inquiry, they will be heard at that time; 
and this statement will be given to the papers. 

(At 6.15 o’clock p. m., the committee adjourned until Monday, 
March 1, 1915, at 10.30 o’clock a. m.) 


FOURTH DAY. 


MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1915. 

Special Committee, 

United States Senate, 

Washington , D. C. 

The special committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 
o’clock a. m. 

Present: Senators Sheppard, Thompson, Jones, and Dillingham. 

The Chairman. I wish to observe at the outset this morning that 
the committee has llot attempted to conduct this investigation ac¬ 
cording to the strict rules of evidence that would be applied in a court. 
I will say, however, that the committee will not be governed in any 
instance by expressions of opinion on the part of witnesses. Witnesses 
here on both sides have from time to time given .expression to their 
opinions and conclusions regarding matters, and I think it fair to 
state that the committee will not be governed by those expressions of 
opinion and conclusions in reaching its findings. 

Is any representative of the excise board here this morning? I 
noticed in the press this morning that they were to send an answer 
of some kind here, and I presume it will arrive later. 

Is Jeremiah O’Connor here ? 

Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you take the stand ? 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JEREMIAH O’CONNOR (Resumed). 

The Chairman. Mr. O’Connor, you have been on the stand before 
and have been sworn ? 

Mr. O’Connor. Yes, Senator. 

The Chairman. Will you proceed and say what you want to say? 

Mr. O’Connor. I wish to state this morning, Senator, that I deny 
in toto the testimony of Officer Newkirk on Friday last in respect to 
me and my place of business. 

I also want to state that I do not run a Chinese restaurant nor a 
restaurant of any kind except a saloon. I do not keep a pig’s-foot 
restaurant, either, or a Chinese joint, as testified to by Officer New¬ 
kirk. Neither do men or women of questionable character enter my 
place—no women of any kind—as he testified, coming and going all 
night. 

The Chairman. You gave me a list of witnesses that you wished 
summoned ? 

Mr. O’Connor. Yes, Senator. 

The Chairman. To be interrogated along that line? 

Mr. O’Connor. Yes. 


304 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


305 


The Chairman. We have tried to procure the attendance of every 
one of them. One was reported sick and one was inaccessible 
We will call the roll here after you leave the stand, and we will put 
them on and we will ask them regarding your place. 

Mr. O’Connor. Thank you, sir. Now, I wish further to state, 
Senator, that I have been in that location for over 10 years, and I 
have never been accused of violating the excise law or any law what¬ 
ever, concerning the sale of liquor or the civil law of the District. 

The Chairman. You have never been in the police court? 

Mr. O’Connor. Never, sir. I have an honorable record both as a 
citizen and a soldier. I served in the late Spanish War, and I have 
commendations from my superior officers to that effect; also from 
the Major and Superintendent of the police force for capturing a high¬ 
wayman and returning the money he stole from a lady on Eleventh 
and Pennsylvania Avenue, and I have testimony of that here from 
the Major and Superintendent. At the risk of my own life I pur¬ 
sued a negro, after he had robbed a woman, for over two blocks and 
brought him to hay and turned him over to an officer of the second 
precinct on July 1, 1904. 

To my mind, Senator, I feel that a man has nothing but his repu¬ 
tation. When that is lost, he certainly is poor. I have nothing to 
leave to my little ones but a good reputation, and I do not wish that 
to be besmirched by anybody, by perjuring himself. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else? 

Mr. O’Connor. I further request, Senator, that after you have 
heard the testimony on the stand you will expunge from the record 
the testimony of Officer Newkirk in reference to me and my place. 
I thank you, Senator, and members of the committee. 

Senator Jones. We could not do that. 

The Chairman. No. 

Mr. O’Connor. I would like to ask that the letter from Maj. Syl¬ 
vester be entered in the record. 

The Chairman. Let me see the letter. These papers may be en¬ 
tered in the record. 

(The papers presented by Mr. O’Connor are here printed in full as 
follows:) 

Metropolitan Police Department, 

Washington, July 7, 1904■ 


Jeremiah O’Connor, Esq., 

No. 230 Seventh Street NE., Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: I desire to express to you the appreciation of the superintendent of this 
department for your public-spirited action in assisting in the overtaking and arrest of 
Samuel Yates, charged with highway robbery, on or about the 1st of July, 1904. Your 
action was commendable and worthy of emulation on the part of other citizens. 
Very respectfully, 

Richard Sylvester, 

Major and Superintendent. 


To all whom it may concern: 

Know ye, that Jeremiah O’Connor, a private of Company A of the Fourth Bat¬ 
talion of Infantry, who was enlisted on the 25th day of April, 1892, to serve 3 years, 
is discharged from the District of Columbia National Guard this 24th day of April, 
1895, by reason of expiration of term of service. 

(No objection to his being reenlisted is known to exist.) 1 

Harry Walsh, 
Captain Commanding Company. 

Character excellent. 


i This sentence will be erased if there is anything in the conduct or physical condition of the soldier ren¬ 
dering him unfit for the active militia. 





306 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Presidio, San Francisco, Cal., July 5, 1901. 

To whom it may concern: 

I take pleasure in commending First Sergt. Jeremiah O’Connor, Company I, Forty- 
third Infantry United States Volunteers, for his personal conduct in many trying 
circumstances in which he has been placed during his service in Company I, Forty- 
third Infantry United States Volunteers, from October 2, 1899, to July 5, 1901. He 
has been a model soldier, painstaking, sober, and industrious. 

At the Battle of Catbalogan, Samar, P. I., January 27, 1900, First Sergt. O’Connor, 
then a corporal, was a member of the advance guard which I commanded. 

During the remainder of my service in the Philippine Islands, Sergt. O’Connor was 
under my immediate command in the following, engagements and expeditions, in 
which he particularly distinguished himself, from March 16 to April 17, 1900, in 
expedition to east coast of Samar, during which my command covered over 600 miles 
of mountain or jungle, much of which had never before been trod by a white man. 

During this expeditiSn whenever I established a base I placed Sergt. O’Connor in 
command. Owing to the smallness of the number of my command, which never 
exceeded 33 men, Sergt. O’Connor’s squad did consist only of about eight men, and 
during this period Sergt. O’Connor was never taken by surprise and never obliged to 
vacate his position, though often assaulted (and every position established was neces¬ 
sarily established in one of the worst of insurgent countries). 

During the absence of my detachments from base, Sergt. O’Connor received word 
that one of my detachments had a severe engagement with the enemy near town of 
San Jose (a distance of about 35 mil^s); that some of the men were wounded and 
needed assistance. A small detachment had just arrived at my place, and Sergt. 
O’Connor taking five men, medical supplies, and rations, made a forced march in 
search of the detachment having wounded men, which he located, aided, and assisted 
to the base. 

During 10 night engagements with insurgents at Paranas, Samar, in May, 1900, 
Sergt. O’Connor conducted himself with credit. At Barugo, Leyte, during June, 1900, 
Sergt. O’Connor had charge of a squad of my detachment, and performed the work 
allotted to him in a manner that any man should justly feel proud of. Sergt. O’Con¬ 
nor’s next command was a detachment acting as a guard for construction party on 
telegraph lines, on the Island of Leyte. At completion of this duty he, Sergt. O’Con¬ 
nor, was placed in command of the night patrol in the city of Tacloban, Leyte, where 
he won commendations for the thoroughness with which he performed this duty. 
Sergt. O’Connor’s performance of the duty of first sergeant was exemplary. 

I take pleasure in recommending First Sergt. O’Connor as sober, honest, and pains¬ 
taking. 

W. E. Morris, 

First Lieutenant, Forty-third Infantry United States Volunteers, 

Commanding Company I, Forty-third Infantry. 


To all whom it may concern: 

Know ye, that Jeremiah O’Connor, a first sergeant of Company I, of the Forty- 
third Regiment of Infantry, United States Volunteers, who was enlisted on the second 
day of October, 1899, to serve for the period ending June 30, 1901, is hereby honorably 
discharged from the service of the United States, by reason of muster out of regiment. 

No objection to his reenlistment is known to exist. 1 * 

The said Jeremiah O’Connor was born in Abbyfield, Limerick, in Ireland, and 
when enrolled was 27 x 6 7 years of age, 5 feet 6| inches high, ruddy complexion, M. blue 
eyes, D. brown hair, and by occupation a clerk. 


Given at Presidio, San Francisco, Cal., this 5th day of July 1901. 

W. E. Morris, 

First Lieutenant, Forty-third Infantry, United States Volunteers, 

Commanding the Company. 

Countersigned: 


J. C. Gilman, Jr., 

Major Forty-third Infantry, United States Volunteers. 

Mustering Officer. 


1 To be erased should there be anything in the conduct or physical condition of the soldier rendering 

him unfit for the Army. 6 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


307 


MILITARY RECORD. 


Noncommissioned officer: First sergeant. 

Battles, engagements, skirmishes, expeditions: In battle of Catbalogan, Samar, 
P. I., January 27, 1900. 

Expedition to interior of Samar, P. I., March 16 to April 17, 1900. Engagement 
at San Jose, Samar, P. I., April 10, 1900. In 10 night engagements at Paranas, 
Samar, P. I May 9 to May 23, 1900. Night attack at Barugo, Leyte, P. I., June 
23, 1900. 

Remarks: Character excellent. 

Services “honest and faithful.” 

W. E. Morris, 

First Lieutenant, Forty-third Infantry, United States Volunteers, 

Commanding Company I. 


Pay department, United States Army. Paid in full, $554.38. Presidio of San 
Francisco, Cal., July 5, 1901. 

Wm. C. Gambrill, 
Paymaster, United States Army. 


The Chairman. I will state, regarding the request of the witness 
that evidence be expunged, that we can not issue an order of that 
kind, but we will give him an opportunity to present any evidence 
he may care to present in refutation of the evidence in the record. 

Senator Jones. Your personal character is not in issue at all. 

Mr. O’Connor. I thought it was. 

Senator Jones. The committee has nothing to do with that. We 
are investigating the excise board, not you or these other people. 

Mr. O’Connor. Mr. Newkirk brought this thing in, and I felt it 
incumbent upon me to clear my reputation. 

The Chairman. We have your record here, and copies have been 
put into the record. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 


TESTIMONY OF MR. PETER LATTERNER. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Give your full name to the stenographer. 

Mr. Latterner. Peter Latterner. 

The Chairman. What is your business ? 

Mr. Latterner. Dyer and cleaner. 

The Chairman. Where are you located? 

Mr. Latterner. Ill Four-and-a-half Street SW. 

The Chairman. Do you know Jeremiah O’Connor? 

Mr. Latterner. I do. 

The Chairman. Are you familiar with the manner in which he con¬ 
ducts his barroom at 115 Four-and-a-half Street? 

Mr. Latterner. I do. 

The Chairman. Is it a Chinese joint? 

Mr. Latterner. No sir; it is not. 

The Chairman. Is it a “pig-foot” restaurant, where men and 
women of questionable character are going and coming all night? 
Mr. Latterner. No, sir; it is not. 

The Chairman. You say it is not? 

Mr. Latterner. No, sir. . 

The Chairman. What is the reputation of O’Connor and his place? 
Mr. Latterner. Mr. O’Connor’s place is reputed to be a very good 
place, and conditions all around there. 

84513°—S. Doe. 981, 63-3-21 


308 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. Do Chinamen frequent his place ? 

Mr. Latterner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Do women ? 

Mr. Latterner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any other saloons in the vicinity of the 
Philadelphia House ? 

Mr. Latterner. There is one, Mr. Lynch’s, around the corner. 

The Chairman. Is there any other saloon between O’Connor’s and 
the Philadelphia House ? 

Mr. Latterner. The only one around near O’Connor’s is Mr. 
Lynch’s. 

The Chairman. Does O’Connor run a saloon or a restaurant ? 

Mr. Latterner. He runs a saloon. 

The Chairman. Have you ever seen any disorder in his place ? 

Mr. Latterner. No, sir; I have not. 

The Chairman. Have you been in his place frequently ? 

Mr. Latterner. I have. 

The Chairman. For what purpose did you go into his place ? 

Mr. Latterner. I may have gone in there to take a glass of beer. 

The Chairman. What is the reputation of the people living in that 
block in which O’Connor’s saloon is located ? 

Mr. Latterner. They are considered a good grade of people— 
mostly black. There is a restaurant at the corner of the alley, a 
Greek restaurant, and there is a Chinese joint at the corner of Four- 
and-a-half and Missouri Avenue. 

The Chairman. How far is the Chinese joint from the saloon ? 

Mr. Latterner. Right at the corner of the alley to the corner of 
the Avenue. 

The Chairman. Is it adjoining the saloon ? 

Mr. Latterner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. How far from it ? 

Mr. Latterner. I should say about 150 feet, perhaps. 

The Chairman. Are there any white people living in that vicinity ? 

Mr. Latterner. Yes; on the same side as Mr. O’Connor’s, on the 
same side of the alley, and one family across the street. 

The Chairman. What is the character of those people? 

Mr. Latterner. Very straight people. There is my family and 
my sister’s family on the left, on the corner of Missouri Avenue, and 
an Italian runs a little grocery store at 1091- My family lives at 109. 

The Chairman. Is O’Connor’s saloon connected in any way with 
the Chinese restaurant, or any other of those houses ? 

Mr. Latterner. No, sir; in no way at all. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL LYNCH. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your name ? 

Mr. Lynch. Michael Lynch. 

The Chairman. Where do you live, Mr. Lynch ? 

Mr. Lynch. I live at No. 639 Eleventh Street NE. I am connected 
with the sixth precinct station. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 309 

The Chairman. What opportunity have you had to know Mr. 
Jeremiah O’Connor and the manner m which he conducts his barroom 
at 115 Four-and-a-half Street? 

^ r -L ynch. ^ know Mr. O’Connor personally. I have known him 
for about 20 years, but since he has been in the saloon business on 
Four-and-a-half Street I should judge it is about 10 years. I have been 
on that beat ever since the Spanish-American War up until I was 
absent there about 8 or 10 months. 

The Chairman. Is this place a Chinese joint ? 

Mr. Lynch. No, sir; it is not. 

The Chairman. Is it a “pig-foot” restaurant, where men and 
women of questionable character are -going and coming every day 
and every night ? 

Mr. Lynch. No, sir. 

The Chairman. What is the reputation of O’Connor, personally ? 

Mr. Lynch. A good fellow. 

The Chairman. And his place? 

Mr. Lynch. First class. 

The Chairman. Do Chinamen frequent the place? 

Mr. Lynch. I have never seen a Chinaman enter O’Connor’s place. 
There is a Chinese restaurant on the corner of Four-and-a-half and 
Pennsylvania Avenue. That is a regular Chinese neighborhood to 
the south of Pennsylvania Avenue, between Four-and-a-half and 
Third. 

The Chairman. Do women frequent this place ? 

Mr. Lynch. O’Connor’s place ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Lynch. No, sir. He has no accommodations there for women 
at all; only his own family. 

The Chairman. Is there any other saloon between O’Connor’s and 
the Philadelphia House ? 

Mr. Lynch. One kept by a man by the name of Michael Lynch, 
on Pennsylvania Avenue, next to the "Philadelphia House. 

The Chairman. Does O’Connor run a restaurant as well as a saloon ? 

Mr. Lynch. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you ever seen any disorder in his place? 

Mr. Lynch. I have not, sir. 

The Chairman. What is the character of the people who live in 
the vicinity of Four-and-a-half Street and the block in which O’Con¬ 
nor’s saloon is located ? 

Mr. Lynch. The families that live in that neighborhood are good 
families—Mr. Latterner’s, Mrs. Harrison, and a man by the name of 
Bergner, across the street. They have been there for years and own 
the property and conduct their business there. There are a few 
colored families who live across the street; and there is this Chinese 
restaurant on the corner and there is a restaurant conducted by 
Dolphus, next to the Chinese restaurant. The alley separates Mr. 
O’Connor’s place from the Dolphus restaurant. 

Senator Jones. You appeared before the board when several of 
these applications for saloon licenses down in that neighborhood 
were up, did you not? 

Mr. Lynch. I only appeared on one, sir. 


310 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Jones. Which one ? 

Mr. Lynch. Only this hotel. 

Senator Jones. You defended every application in which you 
appeared before the board, did you not ? 

Mr. Lynch. That was the only one- 

Senator Jones. I did not ask you that. I asked you whether 
you did not defend, before the board, every application in connection 
with which you appeared ? 

Mr. Lynch. No, sir; I did not. 

Senator Jones. What one did you condemn? 

Mr. Lynch. How do you mean, Senator ? 

Senator Jones. You know what “condemn*' means, do you not? 

Mr. Lynch. I was summoned before the board and I testified to 
what was true, as to the class of people that went in there. I testified 
to the facts, of my knowledge. 

Senator Jones. You defended them, did you not? 

Mr. Jones. No, sir; I did not, sir. 

Senator Jones. Did you condemn them ? 

Mr. Lynch. Reuter's Hotel was a good place, as far as I know. 

Senator Jones. You were asked as to the class of people. That is 
the only one you appeared before the board with reference to ? 

Mr. Lynch. That is the only one. 

Senator Jones. If the record shows the contrary, the record is 
wrong ? 

Mr. Lynch. That is the only case I appeared about. 

Senator Jones. The record would be wrong, would it ? 

Mr. Lynch. It would be wrong; yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. In the Reuter case you were asked about several 
other saloons, were you not ? 

Mr. Lynch. No, sir; I was not. 

Senator Jones. Are you sure about that? 

Mr. Lynch. I do not remember being asked about any other 
saloon. 

Senator Jones. And if you were, you did not give any of them a 
bad reputation, did you ? 

Mr. Lynch. I testified to the truth, your honor. 

Senator Thompson. Did you ever appear in any case against the 
allowance of a license ? 

Mr. Lynch. Oh, I have had several in court, under the old law, 
several years ago. 

Senator Thompson. I mean under the new law. 

Mr. Lynch. No. There has never been any of those saloons in that 
neighborhood before the court under the new law. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JOSEPH H. BOSWELL. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your occupation? 

Mr. Boswell. A policeman, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about Jeremiah O'Connor? 

Mr. Boswell. Yes, sir. I have known him for about 10 years. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about his barroom? 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


311 


Mr. Boswell. I run that beat for the last 12 years; it will be 12 
years the 16th of June. Practically every trick of duty that I have 
done in that time has been in the vicinity of Four-and-a-lialf and the 
Avenue, near his place. 

The Chairman. Is his place a Chinese joint? 

Mr. Boswell. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Is it what is known as a 11 pig-foot 7 ’ restaur an t r 
where men and women of questionable character are going and com¬ 
ing day and night ? 

Mr. Boswell. No, sir. 

The Chairman. What is O’Connor’s reputation personally? 

Mr. Boswell. He seems to be a very nice man, as far as I know. 

The Chairman. What is the reputation of his place ? 

Mr. Boswell. Very nice, Senator. 

The Chairman. Do Chinamen frequent his place? 

Mr. Boswell. No, sir; I have never seen a Chinaman go in there 
in my life. 

The Chairman. Is there any other saloon between O’Connor’s and 
the Philadelphia House ? 

Mr. Boswell. Yes; one. 

The Chairman. What is that? 

Mr. Boswell. It is Mr. Lynch’s, No. 350 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. D. EDWARD CLARKE. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Your name is D. Edward Clarke? 

Mr. Clarke. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What is your occupation ? 

Mr. Clarke. Lawyer. 

The Chairman. Are you Mr. O’Connor’s lawyer? 

Mr. Clarke. I have represented Mr. O’Connor; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you prepare these questions for him? 

Mr. Clarke. No, sir; I did not. They were prepared by Mr. 
O’Connor and written by my stenographer in my office. 

The Chairman. What do you know personally about Mr. O’Connor ? 

Mr. Clarke. I have been knowing Mr. O’Connor for about six 
years. Our relations, of course, were brought about as the result of 
Mr. O’Connor studying law. I think that he graduated from the 
National Law School. Consequently he comes to me often and dis¬ 
cusses propositions of interest to him as well as to myself. 

The Chairman. What is his reputation? 

Mr. Clarke. Very good. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about the way in which he 
conducts his place of business ? 

Mr. Clarke. I enter his place occasionally, to see him. I am not 
a man that indulges in spirituous liquors. 

The Chairman. You say he employs you occasionally? You are 
his lawyer ? 

Mr. Clarke. Yes, sir. I know Mr. O’Connor runs a first-class 
place, considering the neighborhood, of course, and the location in 
which it is. 

The Chairman. What about the neighborhood ? 


312 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Clarke. The class of people there, with the exception of the 
white people there, are ordinary colored people. However, the 
white people living in that vicinity are first-class people; the very 
best people in the community; quite an ornament, I am quite sure, 
to the community. 

The Chairman. Is there any further statement that you would 
care to make regarding Mr. O'Connor or the way in which he conducts 
his place? 

Mr. Clarke. Nothing more, Mr. Chairman, than to say that during 
the many times I have visited Mr. O'Connor's place I have never seen 
the slightest disorder there, and I know from my personal observation 
and knowledge that the statements made by Mr. Newkirk respecting 
Mr. O’Connor's place of business are false. 

The Chairman. Have you visited his place at night ? 

Mr. Clarke. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Frequently? 

Mr. Clarke. Why, possibly once or twice a month. 

Senator Jones. Late at night ? 

Mr. Clarke. The latest hour I have been there to call upon him 
was 11 o'clock, and that was about last week, some time. 

Senator Jones. You do not know what occurs there generally after 
11 o'clock, do you? 

Mr. Clarke. I do not. I might state, Mr. Chairman, that if any¬ 
thing did occur of that kind, it is more than likely that 1 would know 
about it, being his attorney. 

Senator Jones. You would get it from him? 

Mr. Clarke. I would, sir. 

Senator Jones. I want to state for the record, Mr. Chairman, 
that if the matter of Mr. O'Connor’s conduct of his saloon was at 
issue, additional evidence would be produced. But it is not the 
issue in this case. 

The Chairman. I will state that Mr. Newkirk has asked that 
Lieut. Duvall and Officer Peck be called, and we have had subpoenas 
issued for them. 

Is there any one here who wishes to testify regarding the conduct 
of the excise board, or in refutation of anything that has been 
developed here? 

Mrs. Colton. I should like to say a few words to the committee. 

The Chairman. Please come forward and be sworn. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MRS. MARY L. COLTON. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your full name ? 

Mrs. Colton. Mrs. Mary L. Colton. 

The Chairman. Where do you live, Mrs. Colton? 

Mrs. Colton. At the Tremont House, or the Tremont Hotel, as 
you term it. 

The Chairman. How long have you lived there? 

Mrs. Colton. I have lived there for 14 years. I have transacted 
the business alone for seven years; left a widow there seven years 
ago—just seven years ago. 

The Chairman. Transacted what business ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


313 


Mrs. Colton. The hotel business. 

The Chairman. And you conduct that hotel ? 

Mrs. Colton. I conduct the hotel, yes, sir; and I have not been 
summoned here to-day. I have not been summoned, but I saw by 
the papers that some evidence which was not very favorable to me 
had gone in, and I thought it possible if I should appear before 
the board I might be allowed to speak. 

The Chairman. Certainly. 

Mrs. Colton. I would be very glad to answer any questions that 
you put to me, sir. 

The Chairman. You may make any statement that you desire 
to make to the committee. 

Mrs. Colton. I have only this statement to make, in justice to 
myself and to the house, ft is this: I was left a widow there seven 
years ago, with four little children. I consulted my captain, Capt. 
Burns, of the sixth precinct, who was the captain and who has since 
died. I asked the captain, “ What do you advise me to do under the ex¬ 
isting conditions V” He said, “Mrs. Colton, stay just where you are 
until your children are older and you are better able to prepare yourself 
and them for the battles of the world, and I am quite sure we will 
have no trouble with you.” He says, “ I know that it is your desire 
and your intent always to do what is right and that you will do it.” 
During all these years I have never had a police complaint—in fact, 
no complaint of any kind against me. Do you know of any record 
to that effect?—except when Sergt. Catts came in on one occasion 
and removed some people who he said were not married. I do 
not know that you even have any proof that those people were not 
married. I did not know the people. I do not mix with the world at 
all. I do not know the inmates or the class of people which were set 
loose by the Kenyon red-light bill. I do not know any of them, and 
if I took such people in, and they were objectionable, I did it with 
the very best possible intent. My intent was to do right. 

When I received a notice that these people had been taken out of 
the house I applied at once for aid to the district attorney. Mr. 
Wilson was then in office, and he was so impressed with my story 
that he said he would go down before the boaid and testify in my 
behalf. I have forgotten his full name. He was then the district 
attorney. Mr. Laskey is now the district attorney. 

The Chairman. Do you conduct a bar in connection with your 
hotel ? 

Mrs. Colton. All of it, sir; yes, sir; all of it. I also run a lunch 
room for the lawyers and the judges at the City Hall. I am at the 
Tremont at all hours except a few hours that it takes me to serve 
that lunch room at the City Hall; and the lawyers and the judges 
there. About six or eight judges and the best part of the lawyers 
are there every day. I was selected out of a large number of appli¬ 
cants to go there and serve those lunches because those people had 
no place to eat their midday meal without going up town to get it, 
and they could not spare the time to do that. I am at the Tremont 
House at all times except the few hours that it takes me to serve that 
lunch. 

The Chairman. How many rooms are there in your hotel ? 

Mrs. Colton. I have 52. 


314 


EXCISE BOARD OE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. Have you had 52 rooms all the time ? 

Mrs. Colton. Yes, sir. When the new law went into effect I had 
the rooms there without ever driving a nail to make the required 
number, without making any alterations whatever in the building 
to comply with the new Taw. 

Senator Thompson. Fifty-two bed rooms ? 

Mrs. Colton. Oh, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is all we care to ask, unless you wish to say 
something else. 

Mrs. Colton. I am here to answer any questions that you deem 
necessary, if you have any charges against me. 

The Chairman. You have answered all that has been said regard¬ 
ing your place. 

Mrs. Colton. If that is all that is necessary, may I be excused? 

The Chairman. Yes; you are excused. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM H. RAMSEY. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

Senator Thompson. What is your full name ? 

Mr. Ramsey. William H. Ramsey. 

Senator Thompson. WRere do you live? 

Mr. Ramsey. 813 Massachusetts Avenue NW. 

Senator Thompson. How long have you lived there or in that 
vicinity ? 

Mr. Ramsey. Since 1907. 

Senator Thompson. How long have you lived in Washington? 

Mr. Ramsey. Twenty-seven years. 

Senator Thompson. What is your business ? 

Mr. Ramsey. I am an examiner of the Department of Justice. 

Senator Thompson. In the Department of Justice here ? 

Mr. Ramsey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. You are a lawyer, then, I presume? 

Mr. Ramsey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Do you know anything about what has been 
referred to here as the Central Union Mission ? 

Mr. Ramsey. Yes, sir; I have been acquainted with the Central 
Union Mission for 27 years and a little over. 

Senator Thompson. What kind of an organization is that and 
where do they conduct their meetings ? 

Mr. Ramsey. The meetings have been held for something more than 
21 years at No. 622 Louisiana Avenue NW. 

Senator Thompson. What kind of a place have they there ? 

Mr. Ramsey. The mission was organized and has been conducted 
for the purpose of holding religious services for the benefit, particu¬ 
larly, of people who do not attend church, and it has been conducted 
with that one principle ever in view throughout its entire history of 
30 years. 

Senator Thompson. Regardless of denomination ? 

Mr. Ramsey. Regardless of denomination; yes, sir. We hold two 
religious services every day; four open religious services on Sunday. 
This is continued throughout the year, being a total of—well, I have 


315 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


not figured it up, but something about 800 religious services a year, 
m that building, all of which are open to the public, besides gospel 
wagon meetings on the street, which have no relation to this question 

Senator Thompson. What official position, if any, do you hold 
with that mission ? J J 

Mr. Ramsey. I am treasurer of the Central Union Mission. 

Senator Thompson. What kind of a building do they have, or place 
of meeting? r 

Mr. Ramsev . We have a six-story building, with two chapels, or 
rather, with one chapel and one large auditorium. In connection 
with this work we have lodging rooms for people who come to the 
services or others who may be unfortunate and need such, and a 
dining room where they may obtain meals. 

Senator Thompson. At a nominal price, I presume ? 

Mr. Ramsey. At a nominal price. The dining room is not re¬ 
stricted to lodgers or other persons who come in, neither is it con¬ 
ducted as a means of profit, as it is not run at a profit. 

Senator Thompson. Has that been the place of worship for the 
Central Union Mission for the past 21 years? 

Mr. Ramsey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. It has been established for that time, then, 
and running uninterruptedly ? 

Mr. Ramsey. Uninterruptedly for more than 21 years at this 
place. 

Senator Thompson. What is the situation relative to saloons in 
that community? 

Mr. Ramsey. There formerly was a number of saloons in that 
community, but most of them moved away prior to the first of last 
November. The man across the street left and Mr. Howes left. 
There remains one saloon on Sixth Street between C Street and 
Louisiana Avenue, conducted by a man—I believe his name is Daly. 

I think that is the name. 

Senator Thompson. About how far away from the mission is that ? 

Mr. Ramsey. Between 300 and 400 feet. I can not give you the 
exact measurement. 

Senator Thompson. It is on the same side of the street? 

Mr. Ramsey. In that same block with us. 

Senator Thompson. Have you seen the measurements taken and 
do you know-—— 

Mr. Ramsey. I have not seen the measurements taken, but I 
stepped it off myself. I take a 30-inch step, and I stepped it off 
myself; but it was held actually that they were in the 400-foot limit. 

Senator Thompson. There never has been any contention that 
you know of, has there, that it is farther than 400 feet ? 

Mr. Ramsey. Not that I know of. We wrote to the excise board 
calling their attention to this bar and to several bars in Georgetown 
which are within 400 feet of our branch in Georgetown, which has 
been established for a number of years at the corner of Thirtieth and 
M Streets, and in answer to our letter we have this letter, over the 
signature of Col. Smith, stating that the Central Union Mission is 
not a place of religious worship within the meaning of the excise law. 

Senator Thompson. Before leaving this matter that you have men¬ 
tioned as to that being a place of worship that has been maintained 


316 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


for 21 years, I will ask you whether there are any other saloons within 
400 feet of it ? 

Mr. Ramsey. Not at the present time, that I know of. The others 
moved away. 

Senator Thompson. What is the situation in Georgetown at the 
mission there. How long has it been established; and have you a 
house there where religious worship takes place? 

Mr. Ramsey. We have a rented room. There may be some ques¬ 
tion of law as to whether that is a house of religious worship. It is a 
rented room which we have occupied continuously for, I think, some 
half dozen years or more—s'nce a long time prior to the passage of 
the excise law. To my knowledge, there are two, and I have been 
told three, bars within 400 feet of that place. I measured that in 
my own way of stepping it off in regard to two of them. They are 
on the north side of M Street between Thirtieth and Thirty-first. 

The Chairman. Do you wish this letter from Gen. Smith made a 
part of the record ? 

Mr. Ramsey. I do. 

(The letter referred to is here printed in full as follows:) 


Excise Board for the District of Columbia, 

Washington , November 5, 1914. 

Dear Sir: Referring to your communication dated November 3, in which you 
invite the attention of the excise board to the proximity of certain barrooms to your 
mission building, and the fact that licenses were granted in cases cited, in considering 
these cases the excise board did not and does not view the Central Union Mission as 
a house of religious worship within the meaning of the excise law and for this reason 
has not felt compelled to refuse on that account the applications of the persons named. 

Respectfully, 

R. G. Smith, Chairman. 

Mr. Jackson A. Winner, 

Secretary Central Union Mission , 622 Louisiana Avenue NW. 


The Chairman. I did not hear the first part of your testimony. 
Did you testify as to the purposes for which the house in which you 
conduct your ceremonies was organized? Have you testified as to 
the purposes for which it is used outside of religious purposes, if any ? 

Mr. Ramsey. I have testified as to that. We have dormitories 
for lodgers who attend the religious services. We have a dining 
room where persons may obtain meals for a nominal price, which is 
conducted practically at a loss. The income from the dining room 
and the income from the lodgings all goes into the general expenses 
of the conducting of the institution, and besides that we use four or 
five thousand dollars per year from general contributions from the 
public. 

The Chairman. Is there any business conducted there unconnected 
with the purposes of the mission ? 

Mr. Ramsey. There is not. 

The Chairman. Who governs that mission ? 

Mr. Ramsey. The mission is governed by a board of directors se¬ 
lected from the various sections of the city. Our constitution pro¬ 
vides that not less than four religious denominations shall be repre¬ 
sented on our board of directors. 

The Chairman. Do you desire to make any further statement? 

Mr. Ramsey. No, sir. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 317 

TESTIMONY OF MR. WILTON J. LAMBERT. 

iThe witness duly sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman, Perhaps it is proper to state that the chairman of 
the committee summoned Mr. Lambert to appear here. As he is 
an attorney connected with some of the matters about which he is to 
be interrogated I deem it proper to make the statement, in order 
that it may appear on the record, that he did not come here of his 
own accord. 

Mr. Lambert, what connection have you had with any proceedings 
with reference to the saloons conducted by Carr and Wardell? 

Mr. Lambert. Those are two saloons just west of Thirty-sixth and 
M Streets. One is conducted by Mr. Wardell; that is the easterly 
one; the one next to the Washington & Old Dominion Co.’s station, 
and the one west of that is conducted by Mr. P. F. Carr. They have 
been conducting saloons there for some time. 

Under this new excise law it is provided (par. 10, p. 4) (reading): 

No saloon, barroom, or wholesale liquor business shall be licensed, maintained, or 
allowed in the territory west of the following lines: The westerly line of the fire limits 
as now established from its southerly limits to where the same intersects with the mile 
limit of the Soldiers’ Home, thence westerly and northerly along the said mile limit 
until the same intersects with Kansas Avenue, thence along Kansas Avenue to its 
intersection with the northern boundary of the District of Columbia. 

The effect of that was considered by the railway company to be to 
exclude all territory west of Thirty-fifth Street from being available for 
liquor licenses; that is to say, “ the westerly line of the fire limits as 
now established,” as it is expressed in the act, meant at that time— 
March 4, 1913, the date of the approval of this act—the west side of 
Thirty-fifth Street from Water Street, or the river, up to P Street; 
so that anything west of Thirty-fifth Street would have been in the 
prohibited zone. 

On the 20th, or about the 20th, of March following the passage of 
the act, a petition was filed with the then District Commissioners 
asking that the fire limits be extended from Thirty-fifth Street to 
Thirty-seventh Street. 

Under the terms of the act no saloon could be licensed by the 
excise board within the prohibited area after November 1, 1914. 
Some time along in the summer or fall it was brought to my atten¬ 
tion that this extension of the fire limits had been undertaken to be 
secured, and I was also advised by the police department that Messrs. 
Carr and Wardell contended that that was sufficient to protect them 
against the effect of this act. They were taking the position that the 
word “now” as used in the act as to the fire limits must be taken to 
speak as of July 1,1913, and not as of the time when the words were 
used, and that therefore by giving this extension in the interim be¬ 
tween March 4 and July 1 they had been enabled to nullify that 
provision of the act. 

The railway company was very much annoyed by it, because they 
had instructed me to use every effort to try to eliminate those saloons 
because of the great injury which they claimed resulted, and the 
annoyance of their patrons, and the disorder around the terminal sta¬ 
tion, and the temptation also of employees and motormen and con- 


318 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


ductors to get liquor there and subsequently precipitate accidents 
when they got out on the line. 

I called upon the excise board some time in October, I think it was, 
and asked them to give us a hearing on the proposition, stating that 
this information had come to my attention, and that I thought the 
law was so clear and distinct and so complete in itself in connection 
with this provision as to not granting licenses in that territory, that 
upon a consideration of it there ought not to be any two thoughts in 
regard to it; that no subterfuge, such as the extension of the fire limits, 
under these conditions ought to prevail. The board told me that 
they did not care to give any hearing. 

The board further said that they had taken the matter up with one 
of the assistant corporation counsel, and had had a consideration of 
the matter at which Mr. Shoemaker, attorney for the Anti-Saloon 
League, had been present, and that they were decidedly of the opinion 
that they had the right to grant licenses out in that territory if they 
wanted to. 

I thereupon advised the railway company of what I had learned 
in my call upon the Excise Board, and the president of the railway 
company, Mr. Colin H. Livingstone, held a conference with the other 
officers, and then wrote this letter to the Excise Board which was 
transmitted, I think, the same day it was written. It is dated 
October 23, 1914, and reads as follows (reading): 

October 23, 1914. 

To the honorable Excise Board of the District of Columbia. 

Gentlemen: In the interest of the welfare and safety of its patrons the Washington 
& Old Dominion Railway desires to protest against the continuance or the granting of 
any license for the ensuing license year to the establishments now being conducted at 
3603 M Street NW., by Mr. James W. Wardell, and 3605 M Street NW., by Mr. Patrick 
Carr, or to any other person or firm in close proximity to its passenger terminal located 
at Thirty-sixth and M Streets NW. 

This company handles, through its said passenger terminal, the suburban passenger 
traffic of nearby Virginia, amounting to several thousand passengers daily, a large part 
of which is made up of women and children—several hundred school children traveling 
alone being among the number. We submit that any retail liquor establishment in 
the vicinity of this passenger terminal is a distinct detriment to the entire community, 
a discomfort and serious source of danger to the thousands of persons who use this 
terminal daily in going to and from the city, and a thing which in the interest of the 
common welfare should not be permitted to exist. 

In addition to the.welfare of our patrons who must themselves and their children" 
use said terminal daily, and whom we are informed have filed with your honorable 
board vigorous protests in this matter, going into detail as to the seriously detrimental 
conditions caused by the existence of the saloons referred to, especially as regards the 
thousands of women and children who are daily subjected to these conditions, we beg 
to submit that this company’s employees who operate the trains in and out of the 
terminal at Thirty-sixth and M Streets, and in whose hands the lives of these patrons 
are necessarily placed, are by the existence of these saloons subjected to a temptation 
which should not exist and which adds a serious element of risk to the life and limb 
which should not in any manner be legalized. 

We feel that the consideration of public welfare and risk of life and limb involved 
should cause your honorable board to decline to issue any license in the vicinity 
described. 

Under advice of counsel we further insist that your honorable board is without 
jurisdiction to grant licenses to the establishments or in the vicinity in question, as 
under the excise law now in effect, it is provided that ‘No saloon, barroom or wholesale 
liquor business shall be licensed, maintained , or allowed in the territory west of the 
following lines: 

The westerly line of the fire limits as now established from its southern limits to 
where the same intersects with the mile limit of the Soldier’s Home, thence westerly 
and northerly along said mile limit until the same intersects with Kansas Avenue; 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 319 


thence along Kansas Avenue to its intersection with the northern boundary of the 
District of Columbia. ’ 

This law was approved on March 4, 1913, and the “now” unquestionably refers to 
that date. At the time the law was approved the fire limits extended only to Thirty- 
fifth Street NW., and it seems that in order to circumvent the effect of this law appli¬ 
cation was made by one of the saloon keepers, or both of them, on March 20, 1913, for 
extension of the fire limits from Thirty-fifth Street to a point west of Thirty-sixth 
Street NW., so as to take in the two saloons referred to. This, however, could not be 
operative as against the law approved on March 4, 1913. 

If there should be any doubt about this matter and our interpretation of the law in 
connection therewith, we urge in the interest of the welfare of the community that you 
have the matter referred through the commissioners to the corporation counsel for an 
opinion, as it is our desire to have the matter fairly and carefully considered and ex¬ 
amined in reference to its legal phases, if possible, by the officials of the District of 
Columbia, rather than to resort to the courts for any adjudication of the matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 


Colin H. Livingstone, President. 


That letter was sent, but I am advised that no answer was ever 
received, nor any recognition made of it. Certainly, none ever came 
to me, and I was advised by Mr. Livingstone that nothing had been 
received in reply to it by the railroad company. 

After waiting from the 23d of October until the 30th of October, 
we received information that regardless of any statements in the let- 
ter the board was going to grant these applications, which we were 
advised were backed up by two of the largest breweries in Washington. 

Thereupon, on the 30th day of October we filed in the District 
Supreme Court a bill to enjoin the board from undertaking to issue 
these licenses, setting forth the law in full, and our ideas in connection 
therewith, and all the actions that had been taken, and also the let¬ 
ter to which we had received no response. Licenses under the law 
were not eligible to issue until November 1, 1914. We filed, this 
application on October 30. The bill, when presented to the court, 
received the usual consideration. The court issued a rule directing 
the excise board to show cause by a day named therein why it should 
not be enjoined from issuing these licenses. That rule was served on 
the same day, I believe, on which it was issued, and on the day for 
the hearing on the rule the excise board came in, through Assistant 
Corporation Counsel Stephens, with an answer to the rule, in which 
they stated that on the 29th day of October they had among them¬ 
selves talked over these applications and had decided that they were 
going to issue them, notwithstanding the protests or the law, and 
that nothing remained except the ministerial act of issuing them; and 
in view of the fact that the court had issued this rule they had issued 
these licenses on condition that they should be subject to whatever 
ruling the court might make as to their power to issue them. The 
licenses therefore went out in the face of the rule to show cause and 
in the face of the bill for injunction. 

Hearings have been had in the court in reference to that, and the 
case is now concluded. I shall not go into that except to state 
that the only question which the court has asked counsel to file 
briefs upon is the question of whether or not injunction is the proper 
remedy or whether there should be, coexistent with it, a petition for 
certiorari to quash the action of the board in undertaking to issue 
a license. In addition to those protests filed by the railway com¬ 
pany, other protests were filed by a great many citizens of Alexan¬ 
dria County and people using this road, and hearings were asked for 
by them. I think that is about all I know about this particular case. 


320 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

I have here the stenographic record of the testimony taken before 
the District Supreme Court, covering about seven volumes. A large 
amount of testimony was there adduced on both sides, undertaking to 
show the character of saloons. Testimony was taken on behalf of the 
railway company and on behalf of the respondents. 

The Chairman. Did the board say anything about considering 
themselves functus officio in acting on the matter ? 

Mr. Lambert. Oh, yes. When the hearing on the rule to show 
cause came up on its merits the court granted an injunction. Judge 
McCoy granted an injunction on the hearing of the rule to show 
cause, enjoining the excise board from changing the status quo in any 
way, or attempting to make any difference in the situation before a 
final hearing. They directed themselves principally to the theory 
that, while they had undertaken to issue these licenses in the face 
of a rule to show cause, they had been issued, as the excise board 
claimed, conditionally on the court’s acting adversely. 

The hearing came up on its merits about three or four weeks ago, 
and it occupied a good number of days in the trial. At that time 
the excise board came in and answered, not by an answer at all, 
but through Mr. Stephens, the assistant corporation counsel, filed a 
motion to dismiss on the ground that the equity court had no juris¬ 
diction to consider the matter; that the matter ought to be dealt with 
through the law courts. 

They further took the position that the act of Congress, which I 
hold in my hand, in which there is a provision as to how.saloon 
licensees shall be punished in case they violate the law, should govern; 
that is, this section which says that violations of the provisions of this 
act shall be taken into the police court and there tried. They argued 
that’we could not go into the court to have a proceeding tested on 
equitable grounds or by the injunction process, out that our remedy 
must be confined to going into the police court and asking the cor¬ 
poration counsel to issue an information and to prosecute these 
saloon licensees. 

I do not think the court agreed with that view at all, for the act 
on its face makes it impossible for a citizen to have an adequate 
remedy in a situation of this kind, because it says that if a person 
sees or believes that a saloon is being illegally conducted in any way, 
he shall apply to the corporation counsel, who shall issue a warrant, 
but it does not give the citizen himself any right to prosecute, 
or go in and get his hearing in court. If the corporation counsel 
should see fit not to agree with the contention of the citizen, he would 
not be in a position to push his own rights. 

That one element was taken up and the suggestion was made that the 
board, having on the 29th day of October agreed to issue these licenses, 
that might be considered to terminate their power, because after they 
had once agreed to issue a license, the view they took was that it became 
simply an act of ministerial duty on the part of the assessor to issue 
the paper. But the assistant corporation counsel did not undertake 
to take the position that the board might not have power, even if 
they had voted among themselves before the 1st of November that 
they would approve the application; that they could not undertake 
to require any such action. I do not recall that he took the position 
absolutely in any way that it made them functus officio. It may 
be it was simply suggested in the course of the procedure that that 
might be an element to be considered. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 321 

Senator Jones. The corporation counsels office, which is made the 
legal executor of this law, seems to be in the position of attempting 
to defeat it ? 

Mr. Lambert. The corporation counsel has fought very vigor¬ 
ously in this case to maintain the position that this was not a pro¬ 
hibited area; in other words, that the commissioners could, after the 
passage of the act, extend the fire limits. My position was that if 
they could do it for one square they could have done it as to the 
entire district. 

The Chairman. Do you know what brewing interests, if any, were 
back of these applications ? 

Mr. Lambert. The Heurich Brewing Co. is interested in one and 
the Albert Carry Brewing Co. is the one interested in the other. I 
might say I do not know whether that is Albert Carry or the National 
Capital. I believe it is called the National Capital Brewing Co. 

The Chairman. You saw but one? What one? 

Mr. Lambert. Mr. Carr, I think it is; Mr. Carr that is in some way 
connected with the Heurich Co., and Mr. Wardell, with the National 
Capital Brewing Co. I might say further that we originally made 
only the Excise Board defendants, but after these proceedings were 
filed, as soon as the rules were issued and the matter became at 
issue—about at issue—Mr. Rossa F. Downing, counsel for Mr. Wardell, 
filed an application—and I think Mr. Alexander Bell was with him, 
too—to be allowed to intervene and defend on behalf of Mr. Wardell, 
individually. Mr. Carr, through Leon Tobriner, who represents the 
Heurich company, petitioned to be allowed to intervene. Mr. Bell 
represents the National Capital Brewing Co. Mr. Levi Cooke also 
requested to have the privilege of appearing and filing a brief and 
taking part in the trial as amicus curiae, as representative of the 
liquor dealers, either retail or wholesale, I do not know which. The 
requests of all these gentlemen were acceded to, so that when the 
trial came off the defense was conducted by counsel for both of the 
saloon keepers, by the assistant corporation counsel, Mr. Stephens, 
and by Mr. Cooke, and also by one of the counsel representing the 
owners of the property in which Mr. Wardell has his saloon. I 
believe that is owned by the National Capital Brewing Co. My 
recollection is that that is stated in the record. I think that is all. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

The Chairman. The committee desires to state that since the 
opening of the proceedings this morning the excise board has filed 
a written reply to the testimony of certain witnesses who have here¬ 
tofore appeared. I also note that Gen. Smith is present now. 

I will ask the committee if we shall now read this communication 
from the excise board? 

Senator Jones. Does not the excise board desire to make any 
oral presentation before the committee ? 

The Chairman. Do you desire to make an oral statement, General ? 

Mr. Smith. No; if that is satisfactory to you it is satisfactory to us. 

The Chairman. Do you desire to have this read now or just 
incorporated in the record? 

Mr. Smith. To have it incorporated in the report of the proceedings. 

The Chairman. Very well; we will have the reply incorporated. 

Senator Jones. I should like to ask Cen. Smith who prepared this 
statement ? 


322 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Smith. The three of us, during the evening last evening— 
afternoon and evening—and this morning. 

Senator Jones. And this is the unanimous statement of the board * 
Mr. Smith. And so signed. 

Senator Jones. And is to be considered as given under oath? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. I would state that each of the members has 
already been sworn, and that is a part of their statement. 

(The statement referred to is here printed in full as follows): 

Excise Board for the District of Columbia, 

Washington, March 1, 1915. 

The honorable the Special Committee of the United States Senate on Investigation of the 

Conduct of the Excise Board of the District of Columbia. 

Sirs: The excise board submits this rather brief reply to the testimony of certain 
witnesses given before your committee in the hearing which is now being conducted 
before it. Lack of time has prevented the answer from being as full as the board 
would like it to be. The latter half of the testimony was not submitted to the board 
until yesterday and some of it not until yesterday evening, that of Friday afternoon. 

The testimony of Mr. Andrew Wilson, president of the Anti-Saloon League, proves 
but one fact, namely, that on some occasions the excise board, the official body 
appointed to administer the law, placed upon that law an interpretation differing from 
that of the Anti-Saloon League, an unofficial body not charged with the administra¬ 
tion of the law. The board, in every such instance where the opinion of the league’s 
representatives was made known to it, gave it full consideration before determining 
that it was not correct. 

Because the board, in adopting its rules and regulations, in some degree did not 
follow the excise law “according to the views of the attorney for the Anti-Saloon 
League,” in which views Mr. Wilson concurs, it certainly can not be held that on 
that account the board was wrong. 

On page 40 is found the text of a letter addressed to the excise board by the attorney 
for the Anti-Saloon League. The letter is dated September 25, 1913. This letter 
sets forth various erroneous opinions as shown in the reply of the excise board, dated 
September 26, 1913. (See pp. 41-42.) The board stands by its opinions as expressed 
in that reply. 

Mr. Wilson states in his testimony that on a few occasions he sent letters to the 
excise board which were not replied to. The board wishes to make it plain that on 
every occasion when Mr. Wilson wrote a letter over his name as president of the 
Anti-Saloon League, he received a courteous and prompt reply. On one occasion 
he addressed to the board a communication which was so insulting that the excise 
board could not so undignify itself as to reply to it. It was, in fact, as Senator Jones 
has said, “one of the most insulting letters which could be sent to an administrative 
body.” As such, the board felt justified in ignoring it. 

With reference to the two or three other letters to which Mr. Wilson claims to have 
received no reply, they were simply letters of protest written in his capacity as an 
individual property owner. The board has not made a practice of replying in extended 
fashion to letters of this sort, but notices of hearings were sent to all who registered such 
protests, Mr. Wilson among them, announcing the date of hearing upon the cases in 
dispute. At these hearings all protestants were heard and their testimony duly 
considered. 

Mr. Wilson appears to believe that whenever an applicant was refused by the board 
it was due to the efforts of the Anti-Saloon League (p. 65). The board believes there 
is no foundation for any such conclusion. 

However, nothing of any moment has been testified to by Mr. Wilson. He offers 
many statements, many opinions, and much hearsay evidence, but does nothing to 
substantiate any charge or inference. 

Beginning on page 68 and terminating on page 69 is a discussion of a large fee paid 
to Joseph C. Sheehy by an applicant for transfer of his barroom license. Inferences 
have been drawn that the board shared in this and other large fees. Your committee, 
in its questioning, has certainly endeavored to establish the truth of such inferences, 
but without avail. No amount of investigation will prove that there has ever been 
collusion of any sort between the members of the board, individually or collectively, 
and any person in any manner in any case coming under its jurisdiction. The board 
can not be too emphatic in this statement. What arrangements were made between 
Mr. Sheehy and Mr. McCarthy, in the Evans Building transfer case, or between 
attorney and client in any other case, were of a purely private nature and of no concern 
to the excise board. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


323 


Mr. Shoemaker produces certain information in connection with the application for 
renewal of barroom license at the Ebbitt House, in which he refers to evidence pre¬ 
sented before the board by a Mr. Thomas Wood, “who was a former employee of the 
Ebbitt House.” The board believes it is only proper to state that the witness in ques¬ 
tion had not been employed at the establishment mentioned for more than two years 
previous to the date of his testimony, or more than a year before the present excise 
board came into office. Attention is invited to the testimony of George F. Schutt as 
to this witness. It will be noted that Mr. Wood’s testimony was not substantiated as 
to essential particulars, nor by any events which have transpired in the Ebbitt House 
since that time; also that his testimony appeared to be that of a person moved by, to 
say the least, the retaliatory spirit of a discharged employee. 

Further on Mr. Shoemaker relates that in conversation with members of the excise 
board the chairman said to him, “I give no attention to that evidence. It has no 
weight with me whatever.” Mr. Baker is reported to have said: “Amen! Amen!” 
Although it be admitted that these remarks were made to Mr. Shoemaker on the day 
after the hearing, what imputations can be laid against those responsible for them? 
Surely it will be admitted that members of the excise board have the right to state in 
what regard they shall hold whatever evidence is presented before them.. 

Mr. Shoemaker in his testimony (p.,76) states as follows: 

“ If I ever became convinced that the members of the board were grafting, receiv¬ 
ing any part of the money paid to these attorneys, I should stop appearing before 
them.” 

The board takes it that his continued presence before it is an admission on his part 
that the members of the board are not and never were “grafting” such money, not¬ 
withstanding his apparent readiness to set forth to your committee impressions as to 
“collections” being taken up for at least one member of the board. 

Some of Mr. Shoemaker’s testimony might lead one to believe that the board in¬ 
tended to maintain great secrecy in all of its proceedings. The contrary is true. 
Hearings were held on all applications, no restriction was placed upon witness, full 
opportunity was given to the attorney for the Anti-Saloon League to present his case, 
and the board was most patient in listening to testimony sometimes not wholly germane 
to the subject under consideration. This was for the purpose of arriving at a fair 
conclusion. r 

Mr. Shoemaker refers to certain petitions presented by citizens of Anacostia and others 
of the fifth and ninth police precincts calling upon the excise board to declare these 
respective sections dry territory. The board believes that its jurisdiction did not 
comprehend such an action on its part. Congress could easily have provided that sue h 
sections should be dry, and in the absence of such provision the board felt called upon 
to deny the request of the petitioners and limited its action in conformity to the ex¬ 
cise law to individual places. 

In answer to a question by Senator Jones, Mr. Shoemaker stated that saloons were 
apparently placed near Jackson Alley for the purpose of getting the alley trade. The 
board would ask the committee to refer to the testimony of the chairman of the board 
concerning the character of the trade in the barrooms referred to. Investigation dis¬ 
closed that not one of the barrooms now located in that vicinity caters to the inhab¬ 
itants of Jackson Street. While the police reports set forth that Jackson Street is 
inhabited by a low class of colored people, they also indicate that it can not be con¬ 
sidered a slum. 

On page 99, Mr. Shoemaker, replying to a question of Senator Thompson, stated that 
the board took the provision of the law relating to the number of barrooms to be located 
in the District after November 1, 1914, to mean “that there must be 300 licenses.” 
The board has never held that there must be 300 licenses in the District. It would 
again invite the committee’s attention to the testimony of the chairman of the excise 
board in connection with this feature of the law. 

In regard to the testimony of Lieut. John E. Catts with reference to the Grand Hotel, 
attention is invited to the transcripts of the hearings, and in that of the Tremont the 
board directs special attention to the fact that Mr. Clarejice Wilson, then United States 
district attorney, appeared in person before the excise board and testified to the “very 
excellent character” of the proprietress and to his own experiences as district attorney 
with the cases referred to by Lieut. Catts. The same references may be made as to 
the testimony of Detective Howes. The testimony of the board’s chairman may like¬ 
wise be read in connection with the statements of the two officers before the committee. 

The barroom objected to by Dr. John T. Cole, and of which Timothy; Hanlon is the 
proprietor, was licensed at its present location by the excise board, which in so doing 
violated no provision of the law which it administers. 

With reference to the remarks of the Rev. Dr. Randall the board can only say that 
all the evidence adduced at the hearing on Mr. 0 ’Donoghue’s application was prop- 
84513 0 —S. Doc. 981, 63-3-22 


324 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


erly considered, and the board views its grant of the license as just. Exaggerated 
statements are very common at such hearings as the present one, and Dr. Randall is 
among those who delight in uttering them. 

The committee in its examination of the record of the hearing on application made 
by the Grand Hotel Co. will no doubt observe the difference in the attitude assumed 
by Lieut. Sprinkle at that hearing, where he was cross-examined, and that maintained 
before it at the present hearing. 

There is nothing in the testimony of Mr. Louis Bush that calls for contradiction by 
the board. Like other witnesses who would willingly condemn it, he offers only 
what he has been told and tells only what he thinks. He proves nothing nor does he 
reveal anything. 

Other witnesses, particularly the Rev. Dr. MacMurray, are most liberal with their 
opinions. The excise board has studied with diligence and care the provisions of 
the excise law, and does not believe that Congress intended the opinion of a protestant 
to take precedence over that of the board. To say that their contrary opinions prove 
the board culpable would be the height of injustice. 

Owing to the brief time allowed the board in making its reply, it has had to omit 
many points of importance to itself. There have been no direct charges lodged against 
the board, and it is very difficult to be placed in the position of having to make reply 
to inferences and individual opinions alone. There has been no case proved against 
the board and it can not very well undertake to disprove what has not been proved. 

With regard to measurements made by the board, it stands by its position as set 
forth in the statement appearing in the record (pp. 23 to 27). A plat, drawn by the 
surveyor and filed with the excise board, accompanies this statement and establishes 
the distance between the nearest entrance to the barroom of John F. Schriner and that 
of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church as being over 400 feet. Under the 
former excise board this barroom was licensed for several years, though the law on 
the question was the very same as at present. 

There have been two main classes of witnesses presented by the committee, the 
one, namely, representatives or members of an organization opposed to all saloons, 
and the other disappointed privilege seekers. One class seeks to condemn the board 
for granting certain licenses—in fact, all applications were opposed by this body— 
and the other class wishes to convict- it because it has refused certain licenses. 

The first class has succeeded in showing nothing that was not already known. Its 
opinion was not always accepted as valid by an official body which has a perfect 
right to disagree. The other class has established nothing. 

The committee has in its possession the records of hearings in cases referred to by 
the police, which were duly considered by the board and afterwards honestly acted 
upon. 

The board again states that sufficient time has not been given it to prepare such an 
answer as it would like. It has been able to do nothing but point out some flagrant 
errors in some of the testimony given. Many things which it might have said because 
of lack of time must be left unsaid. 

Respectfully submitted. 


R. G. Smith, Chairman. 
Henry S. Baker, 
Cotter T. Bride, 

Excise Board for the District of Columbia. 


The Chairman. The excise board wish some questions asked of 
Mr. Andrew Wilson and Mr. Shoemaker. They have put those ques¬ 
tions in writing and submitted them to the committee. 

Before I put those questions to Mr. Wilson we will hear Mr. Gardiner, 
who is here, and who wants to get away. We will examine him now, 
and then we will put the questions that the excise board wish to be 
asked of Mr. Wilson and v Mr. Shoemaker. Mr. Gardiner, will you be 
sworn ? 

TESTIMONY OF MR. W. GWYNN GARDINER. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Will you state your name ? 

Mr. Gardiner. W. Gwvnn Gardiner. 

The Chairman. And what is your calling ? 

Mr. Gardiner. I am a lawyer. That is, I am a member of the bar. 


EXCISE BOARD OE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 325 

The Chairman. Where is your office ? 

Mr. Gardiner. In the Woodward Building, situated at Fifteenth 
and H Streets NW. 

The Chairman. Have you had any connection with the Raftery 
case? 

Mr. Gardiner. Yes; I appeared for the owner of the property on 
both sides of the proposed building to be occupied as a saloon by 
Mr. Raftery, Judge Luke C. Strider. 

The Chairman. What Raftery is this; what is his name, and 
what is the location ? 

Mr. Gardiner. The place is located at Fifth and H Streets NE., 
the northwest corner. The saloon faced practically on H Street 
and Fifth Street. I do not know the number, but it faced on H 
Street and Fifth Street, and Judge Strider owned two houses on 
Fifth Street adjoining this building, and two houses on H Street 
adjoining the building, and I represented him. 

The Chairman. Please tell us what you know about that case? 

Mr. Gardiner. I sought to prevent the license being issued on 
the ground that it would injure his property; and Mr. Shoemaker 
was there also and Mr. Sheehy was representing Mr. Raftery. Mr. 
Sheehy and Mr. Keane were there, I think. I have not thought of 
this since, but I think it was Mr. Keane—Mike Keane. During the 
testimony it developed that he had made application across the 
street on H Street some time before that, and there had been a 
protest started by a resident in the neighborhood, I think by a 
merchant tailor. I think his name was Fitzgibbons. 

The Chairman. Fitzsimmons. 

Mr. Gardiner. Fitzsimmons; that is it; and Mr. Raftery was 
asked while on the stand if he had not paid some money to Mr. Fitz¬ 
simmons; if he did not know something about that protest when 
he appeared before. He said that he did not, but he admitted 
there was such a protest, and that he had paid $100 to Mr. Fitz¬ 
simmons not to present it. That is the substance of it. The exact 
situation I do not remember, but I know the excise board gave us 
an opportunity to get this gentleman there, and he did appear and 
testified about it, that he had received $100 from Mr. Rafferty. 

Mr. Messenger. Is that name Rafferty or Raftery? 

Mr. Gardiner. Rafferty, I think. That is the only day I ever 
saw him. I think his name is Rafferty. 

The thing that struck me most, as I remember, about the matter 
was that during the argument Mr. Sheehy, who represented Mr. 
Rafferty, made the contention that the board should not consider 
the testimony of Mr. Fitzsimmons, or whatever his name is, because 
he should be in the penitentiary—a man who would accept a bribe— 
and should not be considered at all. I said that I agreed with the 
argument of counsel on the other side, but I thought we should 
include Mr. Rafferty also; that I thought they should be on the 
same par; that the man who gave the bribe and the man who 
accepted it should be treated alike. Cotter T. Bride was one of the 
members of the excise board, and he said, “I agree with you, sir. I 
think that is right.” They refused that license, but I saw after¬ 
wards they had issued a license to Mr. Rafferty in the same block. 
That is really all I know about it, except the chairman of the board 
was very much offended at me, apparently, because I was so vigorous 


326 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


in my protest. He became offended, and I told him that if my en¬ 
deavor to protect my client’s interests was offensive to him, I would 
sit down and not say anything more, which I did. 

The Chairman. That is all. That will do, Mr. Gardiner. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

Mr. Gardiner. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Wilson, will you take the stand? 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ANDREW WILSON (Resumed). 

The Chairman. Mr. Wilson, I desire, at the request of the excise 
board, to ask you some questions which they have submitted in writing. 
You are Mr. Andrew Wilson, president of the Anti-Saloon League? 

Mr. Wilson. I am, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You testified here the other day? 

Mr. Wilson. I did. 

The Chairman. The first question is: Do you believe that the ex¬ 
excise board, or any member of the excise board, has accepted any 
money at any time from any person interested in the conduct of a 
case falling within their jurisdiction? 

Mr. Wilson. That is, in my opinion ? 

The Chairman. That is the question. 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; I do. 

The Chairman. The excise board further wish you to answer this 
question: Do you believe that any member of the excise board has 
accepted or received any other consideration under similar circum¬ 
stances? That is, any other consideration. Look at the two ques¬ 
tions in writing, and then you will catch them better. [Handing 
paper to the witness.] 

Mr. Wilson. I do not know about that. I do not know about the 
other. I have my opinions and I have my reasons for my opinions. 

The Chairman. The question is, “Do you believe?” 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; I do. 

The Chairman. The next question is, Do you believe that there 
has been any other consideration besides money ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Now, note the last question there, which is: Upon 
what facts do you base your belief ? Now, tell us? 

Mr. Wilson. About the first week in September, 1914, Mr. Wil¬ 
liam H. Manogue, in company with Mr. Arthur G. Bishop, came to 
my office and told me that they had information that one Patrick 
McDonald, on Pennsylvania Avenue SE., had paid or agreed to pay 
$19,500 for the piece of property for which he was applying for a 
transfer of license; that Mr. John F. Donohue either owned or con¬ 
trolled the property itself, and that the purchase price on the prop¬ 
erty was $5,200; that a bar was to be put in, and if the transfer was 
granted this man was to pay $19,500. 

This question has been brought out in this way, so that I am going 
to tell this. 

Mr. Manogue told me that he had been in communication with Mr. 
Bride, and the request was made that I should go to Senator Jones 
and ask Senator Jones if he did not believe under the circumstances 
it would be proper to have a resolution introduced in the Senate ask¬ 
ing for an investigation of the excise board. I sent for Mr. Cotter 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 327 

T. Bride. He came to my office, and Mr. Bride related substantially 
the same things that Mr. Manogue had said to me. 

I think perhaps if I should look up my letter books I could fix 
the date of what I am going to tell, but it was about the first 
week of September when I came one morning to the Capitol. After 
my conference with Mr. Bride I called up Senator Jones and got Mr. 
Davis, his secretary, and he made an appointment for me with 
Senator Jones for 9.30 o’clock the next morning. I went to Senator 
Jones’s office at that time. Senator Jones was detained uptown 
for a little time, .but he did get to his office just at 10 o’clock, and 
after a brief conference I went away. I told the Senator that in 
view of what had been done in the appointment of Mr. Sheehy, and 
such connection as I did have with it—because I was called to the 
White House with regard to it—I was going to write to the President 
and put myself straight in the matter, and I gave him the substance 
of what I thought I would write to the President. Senator Jones 
said that he thought this did show the need of an investigation and 
that the President ought to have an opportunity to make such 
investigation and to apply such measures as he deemed necessary; 
that the attitude that he had taken so far as the appointment of 
members of the board was concerned, referring specifically to Mr. 
Lord’s case, was that when the President ascertained what the facts 
were he withdrew the nomination, and he thought it would be wise, 
to pursue that course and not have an investigation by the Senate. 
Senator Jones further said that under all the circumstances it might 
be wise for me to have a conference— oh, I stated to Senator Jones 
that I did not know whether I could reach the President easily or 
not, and then, the suggestion, I think, was made that perhaps it would 
be wise to have a conference with Secretary Bryan. 

I went back to my office and called up Cotter T. Bride, and he came 
to my office and I told him the substance of the conversation I had 
had with Senator Jones, and asked him whether he thought it would 
be wise for me to go to see Secretary Bryan. He thought it would. 
I asked him if he would go with me. He said he thought probably 
he had better not go up there. So in the course of our conversation 
there at that time, or at one of the numerous interviews which we 
had, most of which were held at my office, and at some of which 
interviews Albert E. Shoemaker was present, Mr. Bride said to me 
what I have testified to here in regard to two young men collecting 
money. Whether he said that he knew of it personally or whether it 
was rumor I do not recollect, but they were Mr. Columbus and Mr. 
Baker; that Mr. Baker’s son and Columbus were collecting money for 
Mr. Henry S. Baker, a member of the excise board. We were talking 
about the saloon conditions, and I understood him to mean with refer¬ 
ence to getting money for the issuance of licenses. I wrote a letter 
on September 9, 1914, which I directed to the President of the United 
States. I asked to have an interview with the Secretary of State, 
and he very kindly fixed the time and I went up and he immediately 
saw me. I read to the Secretary of State the letter which I had 
written to the President. 

I told him what our feeling was in regard to the matter; that unless 
the decided tendency of the board as it appeared to us was checked, 
there would be a political scandal, and we did not think it was neces¬ 
sary to have that, and I asked him if some means might not be devised 


328 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


whereby the excise board could be checked in that tendency which 
we deemed was shown by the board at that time, and I told him 
something about the fears that we had; that we had understood that 
large fees had been paid, $5,500 agreed to be paid in the Evan3 
Budding case; that we understood $1,000 had been paid or agreed to 
be paid by Mr. Madden, who was on the stand here the other day— 
Mr. Madden had been three times refused a transfer and then had 
employed Mr. Sheehy and had gotten a transfer—and I referred to 
this Patrick McDonald case, and I said to the Secretary then, and I 
believe now, that men who are in the saloon business are not in it 
for altruistic purposes, and they would not pay such money unless 
they were going to get their money’s worth, and I did not see how 
Patrick McDonald, and I did not see how McCarthy, could pay or 
agree to pay such large sums for simply the assurance of a few weeks’ 
permission to sell liquor in a particular place unless they had assur¬ 
ances that that business was going to be continued thereafter, and 
I did not know how such assurances could be given except by the 
excise board or by the authority of the excise board; and that whether or 
not money was being accepted, the influence was improper; and that 
it seemed to me that it was utterly wrong that such influences should 
be exerted over them, and whether they received anything else, or 
whether they received any money, that these men could go in and by 
doing things of that sort be assured in advance that they would get 
their liquor licenses; that it appeared so to me. This is opinion, of 
course. 

I went back to my office and I called for Cotter T. Bride. He 
came to my office. I told Mr. Bride the result of my interview with 
the Secretary of State, and I also called in Mr. Shoemaker, and he 
went over the letter which I had written to the President and which 
I had read to the Secretary of State, and I said, “ Gentlemen, do you 
think that it is wise to send this letter ? ” Mr. Shoemaker said that he 
did not know whether I ought to send it or not. Mr. Bride said that 
he would not send it at this time. Then Mr. Bride said to me, “ Things 
are in such condition there that it may not be necessary to send it.” 
I said, “What do you mean?” He said, “Well, a day or two ago 
there was a man came to me and said”—as I recall, it was some man, I 
am not sure of his name, but I think it was Campbell, from over near 
the Government Printing Office corner, who had said that Mr. Mad¬ 
den was not doing well in his business; and Mr. Bride said in sub¬ 
stance to me that Mr. Madden had paid his $1,000, he was apparently 
about to fail, and it was believed that within a very short time, a 
few days, he probably would make an objection and ask for his 
money back; and Mr. Bride used this expression, he said: “And 
Gen. Smith has spent it, and he can not pay it back.” That expres¬ 
sion was used to me in my office; and at that time I withheld the 
letter for the time being, and held the letter until the 19th of Sep¬ 
tember, 1914, when I mailed it to the President of the United States. 
I received a response from the Secretary to the President, acknowl¬ 
edging receipt of that letter. 

Furthermore, I have information of other matters as to favors 
that have been received, or apparently received, by the excise board, 
which leads me to the conclusion concerning which I have been asked 
by the board here. One is that I received information which I believe 
was reliable that last summer Gen. Smith was at the United States 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


329 


Hotel in company with Michael J. Keane and Joseph C. Sheehy, who 
have been interested very much in liquor matters, and doubtless rep¬ 
resenting the Abner-Drury Brewing Co., and attended the races at 
Saratoga with them. It is a pure matter of assumption on my part 
that they were instrumental in having him go, or at any rate that 
they were close enough until I understood that they did go. Further¬ 
more, I was told by another attorney that he saw one or more mem¬ 
bers of the board in company with Joseph C. Sheehy at the races at 
Laurel. If desired, I shall give the names of the attorneys who said 
they saw these men at these places. 

The Chairman. Give the names. 

Mr. Wilson, Mr. Harry H. Hollander told me this morning that 
he saw one or more members of the board at the races at LaurH, Md, 
He said that the little man on the board, Mr. Baker, was the one he 
thought of—he had said before that it was Henry S. Baker—but he 
said this morning he was not sure that there was more than one mem¬ 
ber there, but he was sure that the little member of the board was 
there. 

The name of the other attorney, although he did not tell me and 
I have it on information, is Mr. Robert I. Miller, a member of this 
bar. He was at the United States Hotel at Saratoga and saw 
Joseph C. Sheehy and Michael J. Keane in his company at theHime 
the races were going on at that place. 

Mr. Chairman, in view of the large sums of money paid for no 
purpose which seemed to me to be a legitimate purpose, from the 
fact that it was known that a number of men had expended large 
sums in improving property where they could not hope to get the 
value out of it unless they received saloon licenses, from the state¬ 
ments made to me by Mr. Cotter T. Bride, from information I had 
as to the members of the board attending the races, I felt that I was 
justified in my own mind in drawing the conclusion that the excise 
board were unduly influenced and dominated, whether they received 
money or not. I have not stated to any person until this morning, 
when asked by you to say, that they had received money. 

There was another statement made by Mr. Bride in that connec¬ 
tion, and that was that Gen. Smith and Mr. Baker had had a great 
deal of money recently which they were spending very freely, and 
that he had said that he did not understand how it was that they 
got so much money. 

Another thing. At the time when some mention was made in one 
of the papers here, and I think it was the Times, reflecting somewhat 
upon the situation in the Evans Building case, some statements came 
out about Mr. Sheehy, reflecting somewhat upon him, and Mr. Bride 
told me very soon thereafter that the effect of that statement upon 
two members of the board, to wit, Gen. Smith and Mr. Henry S. 
Baker, was such that they had stomach trouble for two days after 
that, and were unable to attend to their duties; and he told me to 
what he attributed it, nervousness and fear on account of the expos¬ 
ure in the Evans Building case. 

I have another statement to make in this connection. Michael J. 
Keane came into my office in the Woodward Building and said to me 
that he had told Mr. Sheehy that it was a great mistake to put that 
saloon in the Evans Building, and he said that undoubtedly any 
such fees as were contracted for there were unwarranted, and I stated 


330 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


to him that I had said in my letter of July 6, 1914, to the excise 
board, that $50 would be a very good fee for the amount of work ap¬ 
parently done by those attorneys in that case; and Mr. Keane said 
to me, “Yes; Joe Sheehy and Columbus have both done more work 
many times for $10 than they did in the Evans Building case, where 
they were getting a fee of $5,500.” 

Mr. Chairman, I do not recall all the things that have been said to 
me which have led me to my conclusion, but I have said some of the 
things which have led me to the conclusion, and as this question 
comes from the excise board, I have answered it thus fairly and 
frankly, and in view of the circumstances I ask for permission to file 
a copy of the letter which I sent September 19, 1914, to the President 
of the United States in relation to this matter. 

(The letter referred to is here printed in full as follows:) 


Washington, D. C., September 19, 1914 . 

The President, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. President: On July 16, 1913, the Secretary to the President inquired 
of me what my opinion was as to the fitness of Mr. Joseph C. Sheehy for membership 
on the excise board of the District of Columbia, and whether, if nominated, he would 
be opposed by the Anti-Saloon League and myself. That opinion was given verbally 
and also in writing by request. 

Mr. Sheehy became chairman of the excise board. I much regret that his admin¬ 
istration of the office, and his activities since he resigned it on behalf of the liquor 
interests, force me to the conclusion that his appointment was a grievous mistake 
and, perhaps, a great misfortune. I therefore request that this letter be filed with 
my letter of July 16, 1913. If for any reason the record should be used as a refer¬ 
ence, I desire this letter to be read with the former one. 

Unless certain tendencies at the excise board are speedily checked I am sure your 
administration will be enibarrassed and the moral forces of the city weakened. I 
refer to this unfortunate situation that it may be called to your attention, and that 
you may have opportunity to make such investigation as may be desired and apply 
such corrective measures as may be appropriate. It would be grossly unfair to you 
to invoke outside agencies before you had information of the conditions. 

Definite and specific data will be furnished either orally or in writing, or both, if 
desired. 

Sincerely, yours, 

Andrew Wilson. 


I have not asked Senator Jones whether I might relate this or not, 
but having been asked in this way, I have related it, and the facts as 
I recall them to-day. 

. I want to say that I have kept in fairly close touch with the excise 
situation. For a year before the Jones-Works law passed and for a 
year afterwards there were many meetings in my office. I am sure 
there were, in connection with the Anti-Saloon League affairs, and of 
those who were engaged in civic reform work, 140 meetings in two 
years in my office, and I remember that when the candidacy was so 
strong for a place on the excise board, on one day—I do not now 
recall the date, but I think it was on the next day after the appoint¬ 
ment by the President of the members of the excise board the first 
time—there were 35 calls on excise matters in my office, and daily, 
almost, I have been in touch with the situation through reports from 
Mr. Shoemaker and from my friends who would meet me on the street; 
and occasionally I myself would be before the board, although I made 
it a rule not to go there unless asked, until the proposed placing of the 
saloon in the Evans Building and the one around on G Street at 
No. 1421. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


331 


There is another thin<* that added to my view in regard to this 
matter, and that is that I had information to the effect that a party 
was refused permission to post at No. 1421 G Street, and I had 
information also to the effect that the Citizens’ Savings Bank, 
which has controlled, and since the District National Bank has con¬ 
trolled that building and that lease, had refused to permit a saloon 
to go into that place. Afterwards it was currently reported that a 
man had paid $10,000 for the lease at that place, and knowing, as I 
did know, that the owner of the property was vigorously protesting, 
knowing that the people who were upstairs there had vigorously pro¬ 
tested—because I was asked to represent some of them myself in 
regard to it—I believed that undue influence of some sort was being 
exercised there. Whether a cent of money has gone to the excise 
board I have no personal knowledge, and whether or not they were 
influenced by going to the races with these lawyers who were inter¬ 
ested in these matters I do not know; but I do know that Mr. Sheehy 
said that this saloon should not go in the Evans Building, and that 
it would be an outrage to put it there; I do know, after what I said 
at the White House July 16, 1913, Mr. Sheehy came to me and 
thanked me for what I had done, and said neither myself nor the 
Anti-Saloon League people in Washington would ever have any 
cause to regret what I had said, and his appointment upon the excise 
board; and I do not hesitate to say that under the circumstances I 
regret it every time I think of it, and I suppose I have regretted it a 
thousand times since. 

Mr. Chairman, these are some of the reasons for the views I enter¬ 
tain. I should not have expressed them if I had not been asked for 
them. 

The Chairman. Was the term “grafters” used in any conversation 
between you and Mr. Bride? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. There is another thing. In talking about 
the matter of attempting to get a resolution introduced by Senator 
Jones, when that was mentioned to me by Mr. Bride he said that he 
had told them down there, as I recall it, or at least some mention 
was made-- 

Senator Dillingham. Told whom? 

Mr. Wilson. Told the members of the board—that if there was not 
some restraint placed upon the matter they would all be regarded as 
grafters; and Mr. Bride made this suggestion to me, that he had no 
doubt that Mr. Sheehy and Mr. Baker and Gen. Smith would clean 
up $100,000 this excise year in the matter if the thing were not 
stopped. 

There may be many other things that were said. As I have said, I 
would not have spoken of these things if I had not been asked re¬ 
garding them by the board; but they have asked for it, and I give it. 

Senator Jones. And I want to say that the committee would not 
have permitted this unless the questions had been put that way by 
the excise board themselves. 

Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman- 

The Chairman. Yes, General. 

Mr. Smith. May I speak ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Smith. The excise board desires to have all the light that is 
possible on this terrible accusation. I now speak for myself. 



332 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

The Chairman. You can take the stand in a minute, as soon as Mr. 
Wilson finishes. 

Mr. Wilson. I am through, unless you want something more from me. 

The Chairman. That will do. Now, Gen. Smith, you take the 
stand and make your statement. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ROBERT G. SMITH (Resumed). 

The Chairman. General, I simply want to say this before you 
start, that the board asked Mr. Wilson for his belief. The committee 
would not have asked any question of that kind. The committee 
would not base any action upon the belief of any individual. The 
committee wants facts, that is all; and nothing would have caused 
them to put these questions, but the fact that the board asked Mr. 
Wilson for his belief and seemed to want that from Mr. Wilson, and 
the committee was not disposed to prevent his answering. 

Now, any statement you desire to make the committee will be glad 
to hear. 

Mr. Smith. I just want to say this, Senator, that this is a terrible 
arraignment, and I feel it personally. I am under oath. I realize 
that, and I say with the full consciousness of that oath that at any 
time in my official career, here or elsewhere, or for private gain here 
or elsewhere, have I never benefited to the value of one dollar in my 
life except that it was honestly my due from salary. I realize that 
this does not only implicate me, but my colleagues, and through a 
colleague. 

I can not say just what I want to, I am so worked up since hearing 
Mr. Wilson. I should like to ask the indulgence of the committee 
for the purpose of bringing my two colleagues here and having them 
put on the stand again. 

Senator Jones. Do you want to ask Mr. Wilson any other ques¬ 
tions ? I want to say, General, that when I made the motion in com¬ 
mittee the other day that questions desired to be asked by outsiders 
should be presented in writing, I did not have in mind the board itself. 
I was perfectly willing, so far as I was concerned, to have the board 
ask any questions it desires of any witness directly. 

Mr. Smith. The board did not know that. It took your official 
record statement and thought that it had to pursue this manner. 

Senator Jones. Yes. If you want to ask Mr. Wilson any questions 
now, so far as I am concerned as one member of the committee, it is 
perfectly agreeable to me. 

Mr. Smith. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, General. 

Mr. Smith. Do you know of any actual condition of my taking 
money from anyone ? 

Mr. Wilson. I do not, General. I do not know of a single mem¬ 
ber of the board having taken money. 

Mr. Smith. You are speaking to me now as one member of the 
board and one only. 

Mr. Wilson. I do not know of any member of the board having 
taken any money from anybody. I stated a moment ago that that 
was true. I was asked through the chairman of the committee, on 
behalf of the excise board, for my belief. I gave my belief and gave 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 333 

the facts upon which I based it, a matter which I would not have done 
if it had not been asked for the way it was. 

Mr. Smith. Without wishing to vitiate Mr. Wilson’s testimony, I 
move that it be stricken out, because of the fact that it is based, on 
belief only. 

Senator Jones. You asked in your question for his belief; so that 
the committee could not strike it out, in view of the request of the 
board. The committee will consider it simply as the expression of 
his belief and not as a statement of fact, because he himself expressly 
stated that it was his belief; and he gave us his reasons for it. 

Mr. Smith. Now, as to my pleasure, as I see it. For 40 years I 
have visited the courses of the country and enjoyed my time off 
in that way. I have not benefited by the practice. It has cost me 
my good money, and I have enjoyed paying it and hope to go on 
paying it in that way until I die. I have not been vitiated or hurt 
m any way by my connection with the turf. It has been pleasure 
seeking and pleasure receiving, but I can not say that it has been 
financial gain. I have willingly paid my part and will pay it again, 
with the help of God. 

Senator Jones. Are there any other statements that you desire to 
make ? 

Mr. Smith. Not until Mr. Shoemaker makes his statement. Having 
asked for the two, I would like to have Mr. Shoemaker go on the stand. 

I would say that it is difficult to be out of company with any 
who patronize the turf, since there is but one train to travel on, 
usually, known as the race train, and if you go to a place like Saratoga 
there are but two places to stop at—the United States and the Grand 
Union. 

Senator Jones. You did see at the hotel Mr. Sheehy and the other 
gentleman named by Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. And I want to say, further, that I was in 
company with my wife. She was with me. She was my companion 
and nobody else; and I hope she will be my companion for many 
race meetings in the future. She will, with my help, if we live. 

Senator Jones. That is very nice, General. General, you want 
these questions put to Mr. Shoemaker as they are written ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. The committee would not call on any witness to 
express his belief except at the request of the board. 

I Mr. Smith. If it was done in one case it is quite proper that it 
should be done in the two. 

Senator Jones. Of course, we are glad to submit the questions if 
the board desires it. 

Mr. Smith. I have nothing to fear, Senator. The great difficulty 
is that many people read one side who do not read the other. 

Senator Jones. That is very true. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ALBERT E. SHOEMAKER (Resumed). 

Senator Jones. The chairman of the excise board desires the com¬ 
mittee to ask you these questions: 

Do you believe that the excise board, or any member of the 
excise board, has accepted any money at any time from any person 
interested in the conduct of a case falling within their jurisdiction? 


334 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Do you believe that any member of the excise board has accepted 
or received any other consideration under similar circumstances ? 

If yes, upon what facts do you base your belief ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I may be permitted to answer those questions in 
my own way ? 

Senator Jones. The committee certainly shall not fix the way in 
which you shall answer them. 

Mr. Shoemaker. When this board first came into office the Anti- 
Saloon League- 

Senator Jones. I would suggest this, that you answer yes or no to 
these first two questions; and then if you answer no, of course there 
will be no necessity of going any further. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I should like the privilege of making a statement 
in connection with them in case I should answer no. 

Senator Jones. You would have that right. 

Mr. Shoemaker. When this board first came into office the Anti- 
Saloon League was rather proud of the new law and sought to 
cooperate with the excise board in administering it. I appeared before 
them from the very beginning, constantly, up to the present time. 

After the rules were adopted by the board I had the first intimation 
that we were likely to lose a large part of the best of the law. We 
sought to overcome that, but we did not succeed. We did it by 
appealing, we did it by protests, and in every way that was proper 
we tried to make the best out of this law with this board as at first 
constituted, and as now constituted. 

During that time and since, there have come to my notice, 
almost altogether after the resignation of Mr. Sheehy, people making 
complaints of the actions of the board and making insinuations 
against them because of these actions; and after Mr. Sheehy had 
resigned and began to practice before the board it appeared that he 
had more success than any other attorney with apparently difficult 
cases which were put through by him as the representative of the appli¬ 
cants; that while other attorneys lost their cases he rarely lost his; 
and when it appeared that he was receiving large fees, and when it 
appeared that other attorneys having cases were less successful, and 
when it appeared that licenses were being granted against protests 
when we thought they should, under the law, not have been granted, 
then the question arose: What is the trouble? When people made 
charges to me, my answer was, “I do not know; you can draw your 
own conclusions.” 

About the time our President, Mr. Wilson, wrote a letter to the board 
in reference to some of these large fees and other things that were 
objected to, they invited me into an executive session, and asked me if 
I had heard these rumors of large fees—stories of large fees—and 
these stories reflecting upon the board. I said, “Yes; I have heard 
the stories from many sources.” 

Senator Thompson. About when was that? 

Mr. Shoemaker. That was, I should say, last fall a year ago, 
directly after Mr. Sheehy had resigned, or after he began practicing 
before the board. Rather, I think it was in the spring of the year, 
Senator. 

I said to the board that I had heard these stories and I asked them 
to take steps somehow to protect themselves and to protect the com¬ 
munity against them. I said to them that I did not believe they 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


335 


were guilty of grafting or corruption, but that they owed it to the 
community to take some steps to protect themselves; that when I 
believed that they were grafters or received money for their actions 
in excise cases, I would then stop appearing before them. 

I did not wish, the other day, to bring in the matter in reference to 
Mr. Bride’s story of collections, but it went in; and that is not all 
that Mr. Bride has told me in reference to the excise board. I do 
not now care to repeat some things that he told me. 

I answer the first question, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I have 
continued to appear before the board up to this time. 

Senator Jones. I think, Mr. Shoemaker, that for the record you 
ought to make your answer to that question a little differently, either 
yes or no, after your explanation. 

Mr. Shoemaker. The question has been put up to me a number of 
times, but I never yet have satisfied myself that the members of the 
board have received money illegally in connection with these licenses, 
and I have never said to anyone that I believed so. 

Senator Jones. So that you have no belief that they have. I 
think, in justice to the board, there ought to be a direct answer to 
that question. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I think that is very direct. I will make it as 
direct as I can. 

Senator Jones. You could answer the question yes or no. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I say this, that what will make one man believe 
one thing might not make another. I am entitled to that opinion. 

Senator Jones. That is true, and all you are asked is as to your 
opinion. Do you have that belief ? 

Mr. Shoemaker. I do not; I do not entertain it. 

The Chairman. Did you hear Mr. Wilson testify as to what Mr. 
Bride said to him while you were present? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Yes. I verify that. I verify most of it. 

The Chairman. Answer the second question, Mr. Shoemaker. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I have no knowledge nor any opinion in reference 
to the second question as to other consideration. 

The Chairman. In view of the fact that Mr. Wilson stated fully 
what Mr. Bride said to him, will you state what else he said to you? 

Mr. Shoemaker. Why, he said that we had no chance with these 
other two members of the board; that they were against us, and that 
he had to fight in order to get anything at all; that he had to agree to 
vote for renewal of licenses where he believed they ought not to be 
renewed; that in case of certain applications he was opposed to if 
the others voted for them he would thereafter let his name appear 
as in opposition. But when the licenses were acted upon his name 
appeared with the rest in granting the licenses. There was no 
division whatever. He referred, also, on one occasion to large sums 
of money he saw one member of the board have that he could 
not account for; and he also advised that the only thing we could 
do would be to have the excise board investigated. I do not recall 
just anything else definitely, Mr. Chairman, at this time; but he 
spoke to us frequently about such matters. I did not know whether 
Mr. Bride was visionary about it, or just what he meant. I could not 
understand, exactly. 

The Chairman. What was your answer to the second question 
there ? 


336 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Shoemaker. That I have no information or knowledge- 

Senator Jones. I would suggest that the question asks for your 
belief. 

The Chairman. Read the question, and then answer it. 

Mr. Shoemaker (reading): 

Do you believe that any member of the excise board has accepted or received any 
other consideration under similar circumstances? If yes, upon what facts do you 
base your belief ? 

I answer that by saying no. 

The Chairman. Gen. Smith, do you want to ask Mr. Shoemaker 
any questions ? 

Mr. Smith. Was the answer to the first question tantamount to no ? 

The Chairman. It was no. 

Mr. Smith. And the second, no ? 

The Chairman. That is my understanding, General. 

Mr. Smith. I have no questions. 

Mr. Shoemaker. I want to say that in view of all the things that 
have been said and all the actions taken I should like to find out 
whether the charges are true or not. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

The Chairman. The committee will now hear further from Gen. 
Smith. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ROBERT G. SMITH (Resumed). 

Senator Jones. I should like to ask you a few questions. I will 
state to you that a part of the committee went around yesterday and 
noticed from the outside the situation with reference to several of 
these saloons, and I want to ask you a few questions about a few of 
the particular instances. 

There is a saloon out here on East Capitol Street—I forget the name 
of it, but it is out in the third or fourth block. You were asked about 
it the other day. It is the one at which a railing has been built out 
from the saloon. 

Air. Smith. Is it Mergner’s saloon ? 

Senator Jones. Yes; I guess that is the place. A fence or an iron 
railing has been built out there. The appearance there now is this, 
that there is a railing or fence built out from the side of the saloon 
next to the schoolhouse, all the way across the parking to the outer 
sidewalk, so that anyone coming from the direction of the schoolhouse 
would have to go around that to get into the saloon. There is a con¬ 
crete walkway running close up along the fronts of those buildings to 
the east of the saloon, apparently put there for the purposes of travel. 
This railing is built across that walkway on the east side of the saloon, 
shutting out travel; and on the west side of the saloon, the side away 
from the schoolhouse, on the west side of the entrance of the saloon, 
there is a railing part of the way, but across the concrete walk in 
front of and next to the building, there is an opening. There is not 
even a gate across it. You testified the other day that there was a 
gate, and it was locked when you were out there. There is no gate 
there now at all. There may have been one when you were there, 
but there is no gate of any kind now, but an opening. 

I want to ask you if that does not indicate very clearly that this 
railing was put out there on the side next the schoolhouse for the 
purpose of making the distance between the entrance to the saloon 



EXCISE BOARD OE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 337 

and the schoolhouse greater, and to put the saloon beyond the 400 - 
foot limit? 

Mr. Smith. There are two railings, one a complete ra ilin g, from 
the building out to the sidewalk. 

Senator Jones. I do not know that it runs out clear to the side¬ 
walk. 

Mr. Smith. That is the condition in which we found it. On the 
other side, farthest from the school side, it may be that there was no 
fence at all. 

Senator Jones. There is a fence part of the way, but it leaves an 
opening between the building- 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall the exact condition there; but the 
condition on the side nearest the school, the side on which we had to 
measure, was that there was this obstruction or railing, and we had 
to go around it. 

Senator Jones. Did it not look to you as if the railing was put 
there to make an obstruction? 

Mr. Smith. Senator, we are not empowered to remove those 
obstructions. 

Senator Jones. No; but you are not compelled to grant the license. 

Mr. Smith. Possibly not. We are not required to issue any licenses, 
really. 

Senator Jones. That is true. 

Mr. Smith. But the proper thing to do, in consideration of the 
property, personal, and all other interests, as an administrative body 
is supposed to do and tries to do—we believed that justice to the man 
required us to do it. 

Senator Jones. Do you not think that if there is an indication 
that a man is deliberately trying to create such a condition as to 
evade the law, you ought to reject such an application as that? 

Mr. Smith. Well, that railing is under another department, and that 
department should remove it n it is an obstruction. 

Senator Jones. Oh, no; it is not a question of the removal of the 
obstruction, but of the refusing to grant a license to a man who has 
deliberately evaded the law. Do you not think so ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, on second thought, perhaps I might do so. 

Senator Jones. I want to ask you about another place. Do you 
know where the Eastern High School is ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And there is another school building close to it, is 
there not ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Quite a large number^>f school children gather in 
there ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. To the north of the high school there is a saloon. 
We found in front of the saloon and between the entrance and 
the school house a square plat that had evidently been recently 
made, with a concrete rim around it, and apparently they had at¬ 
tempted to put it to grass, but it had not succeeded very well, or had 
not had time to grow grass very well; but it did serve to obstruct the 
approach to the entrance, and you are obliged to travel around, a 
greater distance. Did you see that there when you went out to look 
at that place ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; and the grass was very marked. 


338 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Senator Jones. It is not very marked now, and there is no mark 
there that it ever was very marked. 

Mr. Smith. With all due respect, I assure you that it was. 

Senator Jones. I am just saying how it is now. I want to ask you 
this: Did it not appear to you that that was put in there for the pur¬ 
pose of lengthening the distance between the entrance to the saloon 
and the Eastern High School and that other school building ? 

Mr. Smith. It does lengthen the distance, whether it was put in 
there for that purpose or not. 

Senator Jones. Did it not indicate to you that it was put in there 
for that purpose ? 

Mr. Smith. It may have been, and probably was. 

Senator Jones. If it was, and if you thought it was, do you think 
that as an executive officer sworn to administer this law you should 
have permitted this man to evade the law and should have granted 
him a license under such circumstances ? 

Mr. Smith. Viewed from that side, I suppose we might have acted 
otherwise. 

Senator Jones. What other side could you view it from? 

Mr. Smith. From that of the protection of an individual ydth his all 
invested, and the administration of the law with equal justice to all. 

Senator Jones. You should allow the individual to evade the law? 

Mr. Smith. No; we did not- 

Senator Jones. By some act of his? 

Mr. Smith. No; we do not knowingly allow an evasion of the law. 

Senator Jones. Did he not evade it in putting that obstruction out 
there ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know that he put it there. 

Senator Jones. Did you try to find out ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir; we found it there. 

Senator Jones. It indicates that he put it there. It was right in 
front of his place ? 

Mr. Smith. I understand it is probable that the owner of the 
building- 

Senator Jones. I am not talking about the owner of the building; 

I am talking about this man who got this license. 

Mr. Smith. He may be the owner of the building. I do not know, 
that is what I had in mind. 

Senator Jones. It does not make any difference whether he is the 
owner of it or not, if he put that obstruction in there to lengthen the 
distance between his saloon and the schoolhouse he was doing it to 
evade the law ? 

Mr. Smith. No; I do not ihink so. 

Senator Jones. Was it not shown at the hearing on the application 
for that saloon that he had put that in there ? 

Mr. Smith. We found it there when we went and measured it. 

Senator Jones. General, I did not ask you that. I asked you 
whether or not it was not shown at the hearing that he put it in ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall that ? 

Senator Jones. You do not remember that? 

Mr. Smith. I do not remember. 

Senator Jones. I want to ask you this: Do you remember how far 
you found it between the entrance to his saloon, with that obstruction 
there, and the entrance to the schoolhouse? 




EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


339 


Mr. Smith. Over 400 feet. 

Senator Jones. Do you remember how much over? 

Mr. Smith. But the exact distance I do not remember. I did 
not hold the end of the tape. 

Senator Jones. You would not have to hold the end of the tape to 
know the result, would you ? 

Mr. Smith. Four hundred and some odd feet. 

Senator Jones. How many, do you know? 

Mr. Smith. Four hundred and two or three or four. 

Senator Jones. You would give the saloon the benefit of that 2 
or 3 feet as against the school children and the people there, and the 
evident intention of the law to keep saloons away from the school- 
houses, would you ? 

Mr. Smith. I would, as long as the law was being upheld. The 
people in that neighborhood are entitled to some consideration from 
the hands of the board. 

Senator Jones. Do you remember whether anybody petitioned from 
that neighborhood or not, besides the saloon man ? 

* Mr. Smith. I do not, Senator. We had 523 hearings. 

Senator Jones. There was not any particular uprising on the part 
of the people in that neighborhood in favor of the saloon, was there ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall such. 

Senator Jones. I should like to ask you this: Where do you con¬ 
sider the entrance to the schoolhouse to be ? Do you consider it at the 
gate, where people have to enter, or do you consider it at the door ? 

Mr. Smith. The door of each. 

Senator Jones. You measured clear to the door ? 

Mr. Smith. The door of each; yes. 

Senator Jones. You consider the inside door the entrance, do 
you not? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. You did not consider the- 

Mr. Smith. That is, the outside door of the building. 

Senator Jones. There is an archway 'there. You remember that, 
do you not ? There is no door to that, but there is an archway, and 
it is 3 or 4 feet from the door ? 

' Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. You did not consider the gate out there by the 
sidewalk, with the railing, the entrance of the schoolhouse? That 
is where everybody has to come in. You did not consider that the 
entrance? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir; that is where a difference of opinion comes m. 

Senator Jones. Oh, yes; I understand that. There are some steps 
going up to the door of the building, are there not ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. You measured the length and then you measured 
the height, did you not ? 

Mr. Smith. I did not, sir. 

Senator Jones. How did you measure it? 

Mr. Smith. By a straight holding of the tape from the foot of the 
steps to the upper part. 

Senator Jones. From the foot, at an angle? 

Mr. Smith. 'At an angle, not step and riser; no, sir. 

84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3-23 


340 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Senator Jones. Did you know that that is the way that the engi¬ 
neers measure; and that that is the usual method of measuring 
distances on a slope ? 

Mr. Smith. I think we took the regular way. 

Senator Jones. You would not measure from the foot, on a slant, 
away up, would you ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Jones. That is the way you measured it, anyhow, is it ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. We did not measure it step and riser, step 
and riser. 

Senator Jones. But you measured from the bottom on a slant. 

Mr. Smith. Quite so. 

Senator Jones. You did not take an upright here to the level of 
the top step and then measure straight across [illustrating] ? 

Mr. Smith. No. 

Senator Jones. You know that is the way they measure on a hill 
side, do you not? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know that. 

Senator Jones. Your engineers did not tell you that is the way 
they measure ? 

Mr. Smith. No; I did not know that. 

Senator Jones. You measured that in every way possible to get 
that saloon located there. Is not that a fact ? 

Mr. Smith. We measured it straight, one way. 

Senator Jones. Was there any indication to you that the entrance 
to that saloon had been changed from one side of the building to the 
other, farther away from the schoolhouse ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. You did not see any indications of that? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir; we did not. And I might say that I have 
been there two or three times, and never was there when the door 
was nearer to the schoolhouse than it is at the present time. 

Senator Jones. And you did not see any indication that there 
ever had been an entrance nearer to the schoolhouse ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. There is a saloon across Pennsylvania Avenue 
from this schoolhouse—McDonald’s. Do you remember where the 
McDonald saloon is on Pennsylvania Avenue ? 

Mr. Smith. Southeast ? 

Senator Jones. It is near the high school and the Wallach school. 

Mr. Smith. Patrick J. McDonald ? 

Senator Jones. Yes. It is a brick building. 

Mr. Smith. I do not know what the character of the building is. 

Senator Jones. You measured down the sidewalk from this 
McDonald saloon to the nearest schoolhouse, I think it is the Wallach 
school? You measured down the sidewalk to the crossing to that 
school, across Pennsylvania Avenue, and then measured across to the 
other schoolhouse ? Is not that the way you measured it ? 

Mr. Smith. We have done that, and we have done it another way, 
across the path, the concrete walk across the parking of the street, 
directly in front of McDonald’s door. 

Senator Jones. Is that the way you measured it there? 

Mr. Smith. Yes; we measured it that way and measured it down 
the sidewalk, as you have indicated. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 341 

Senator Jones. Which measurement did you take as the basis for 
determining whether it was within the 400-foot limit or not? 

Mr. Smith. Across the cement path. 

Senator Jones. You took the shortest measurement? 

Mr. Smith. That is, the shortest course of travel. 

Senator Jones. Did you go diagonally across Pennsylvania Avenue 
and the parking? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir; straight across. 

Senator Jones. Did you not see that the people crossed that in a 
diagonal way there ? 

Mr. Smith. I did not, Senator. 

Senator Jones. If you go out there now you will see it is well 
worn, and you will see the people going across there, too. Do you 
not know that the cars stop there to let people on and off ? 

Mr. Smith. That is, nearer to the corner? 

Senator Jones. No; directly in front, almost in front, diagonally 
in front, of the McDonald saloon. 

Mr. Smith. Well, I do not know that, Senator. 

Senator Jones. You do not remember what distance you found 
between McDonald’s saloon and the schoolhouse there, to the nearest 
entrance to it? 

Mr. Smith. No; I do not. 

Senator Jones. But whatever it was, you gave the saloon the 
benefit of it? 

Mr. Smith. It was over 400 feet. 

Senator Jones. You gave the saloon the benefit of it, notwith¬ 
standing the schools there ? 

(The witness did not answer.) 

Senator Jones. There is another saloon out in that direction called 
Raftery’s. Do you remember that ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not remember just exactly where it is. 

Senator Jones. It is at Eleventh and C Streets, Mr. Wilson tells 
me. It is called the Raftery saloon. Do you remember that ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes; Thomas Raftery. There are several of them. 

Senator Jones. It is at Eleventh and C. There is a little square 
building there, apparently recently constructed, which looks like it 
may have been constructed to make it a business front. Then there 
is a little shoe establishment, I think, and there is every indication 
that the great percentage of that frontage there is residence frontage. 
Did you examine that very carefully ? 

Mr. Smith. The board examined it as carefully as possible. So far 
as my recollection goes there were over 50 per cent of business .houses 
in that frontage. 

Senator Jones. If you saw that a building had evidently been con¬ 
structed for the purpose of making a business front in order to get 
the saloon, you would not consider that against the application at 
all, would you ? 

Mr. Smith. We would not consider it for the application if as a 
subterfuge it had been manifest. 

Senator Jones. Did you see any indications out there of any build¬ 
ing put up as a subterfuge ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. You have not examined that situation lately? 

Mr. Smith. No, Senator. 


342 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Jones. I will just ask you this right there. There is what 
you call a place, a short space which divides the block into two blocks. 
I want to ask you whether the board considered that as a division of 
the block, and up to that place it called 'it a block, or whether you 
took the block as including that space between the two regular streets ? 

Mr. Smith. We considered the distance between the two regular 
streets. 

Senator Jones. All right. On the corner to the south of the sa¬ 
loon there is a building that fronts on the other street, but the side 
of which runs along the street that the saloon fronts on. Do you 
consider that in this case that building fronts on the street where 
the saloon is, or do you consider it simply as a business house front¬ 
ing on the street that it actually fronts on ? 

Mr. Smith. If the business house fronts on a corner it counts on both 
streets. 

Senator Jones. How does it happen, then, that those saloons built 
there on the corner do not count on both streets ? For instance, in 
the case of this Miller place, how does it happen that does not count 
on both streets ? 

Mr. Smith. Oh, yes; that is a different proposition. 

Senator Jones. Oh, yes; that is a saloon. I want to know why 
it is that you count a business house as fronting on both streets, but 
you do not count a saloon as fronting on both streets ? 

Mr. Smith. The law tells you how to count a saloon. 

Senator Jones. What does it say? 

Mr. Smith. The saloon wherein the license is held. 

Senator Jones. It says there shall be no more than three saloons 
on one side of a street ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. How does that permit it to be on both streets, or 
on one street and not on the other, when it is on a corner ? - 

(The witness did not answer.) 

Senator Jones. I will not insist on that further. Take this 
Raftery place. It was very plain to us that formerly this saloon 
had its entrance on C Street. C Street had practically all residences 
on it. The C Street entrance has been closed, and it has made its 
entrance on Eleventh Street. That was evidently to evade the law, 
was it not ? 

(The witness did not answer.) 

Senator Jones. You would not consider it so? 

Mr. Smith. Not an evasion. 

Senator Jones. Simply a perversion ? 

Mr. Smith. Coniplying with the law; getting a front or main 
entrance on the side where business would permit it to remain. 

Senator Jones. So it could have a license ? 

Mr. Smith. Where business would permit it to remain if the excise 
board did. 

Senator Jones. And the excise board has, in every case—— 

Mr. Smith. I do not know, Senator, in every case. 

Senator Jones. You do not know of any case where you rejected 
it, do you? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall. I know we did reject 112 applications. 

Senator Jones. Because you could not license more than 300? 

Mr. Smith. Probably. 



©XCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 343 

Senator Jones. I want to ask you about another one. There is 
one down here close to the post-office substation, I think it is called— 
M. F. Sullivan’s, I think, is the name of it. It is at Fenton Place, 1016 
First Street NE. Do you remember that? 

Mr. Smith. I think so. 

Senator Jones. Do you remember the character of the dwellings 
along Fenton Place ? That is practically a slum, is it not ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall that location exactly. First Street NE. ? 

Senator Jones. Yes; Fenton Place; right out from the post office, 
an annex to the Post Office Department. Do you remember where 
that is ? 

Mr. Smith. Is it a large building? M. F. Sullivan? 

Senator Jones. Or F. A. Sullivan? 

Mr. Smith. I will look it up and testify after lunch. 

Senator Jones. I wanted to call your attention to the situation 
there, General. It was perfectly plain, that the saloon had had an 
entrance on Fenton Place, We could see the very distinct lines 
where it had been filled up and bricked up and painted over, and 
it was clear that it had had an entrance on Fenton Place. The 
electric light was still over its closed-up entrance. The entrance has 
been made to front on First Street and a door has been put in there. 
The saloon apparently is in the same room that it always was in, the 
same place, the same saloon located in the same way. On the side 
that the saloon fronts on now there are two or three old shacks that 
do not look like anybody would live in them or do any business in 
them. Then there is a large part of the frontage that looks like it is a 
sort of a dump, probably pretty near half of it being a sort of a dump 
for tile and brick, and so on. 

Did you examine that when you granted that application to see 
whether or not there was 50 per cent of that frontage business houses ? 

Mr. Smith. What is the exact location ? 

Senator Jones. At Fenton Place and First Street? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall that, but I will look it over and give you 
my answer after lunch. 

Senator Jones. Do you think, then, General, that when the indi¬ 
cations are as plain as they are there—there can not be any doubt 
about it—that it has closed up its entrance and opened it on another 
street in order to make a compliance with the law, and that for the 
rest, the business frontage is apparently part of it a subterfuge and 
part of it can not be classed as business at all, the board should grant 
a license under such conditions ? 

Mr. Smith. If the board found live business to the extent required 
by law- # # * 

Senator Jones. But the law does not reauire it. 

Mr. Smith. The law says that there shall be 50 per cent of foot 
frontage used for business purposes. 

Senator Jones. The law says you can not grant a license unless 
there is that much, but it does not say that you must grant a license 
if there is that much. 

Mr. Smith. Quite so. 

Senator Jones. I want .to know whether or not there is any room 
for the exercise of the discretion vested in this board, in the interests 
of the people and the interests of temperance, and whether the board 
does not think it ought to exercise that discretion. 


344 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Smith. The board exercised its discretion to the benefit of 
the greatest number, it believes. 

Senator Jones. I should like to know whether you benefited any¬ 
body there except the saloon man. I wish you would tell me that. 

There is a slum element at Fenton Place that ought to be protected 
against these things if there is any possible way to do it, and yet 
you have left this saloon right at the very mouth of that place to prey 
on these people. Whom do you benefit ? What benefit comes from 
it, except to the saloon man? I wish you would tell me. Please 
give me your idea of what benefit comes through it. 

Mr. Smith. Everyone has a demand on the board for its attention 
and consideration, and in giving it such it tries to be fair to all con¬ 
cerned, conditions considered. 

Senator Jones. I should like to know why it would have been 
unfair to have refused that saloon there, except, possibly, to the 
saloon man. 

Mr. Smith. The location is not clear to me, I have said, and I would 
like to look it over. 

Senator Jones. I wish you would go down and look it over. 

There is an alley this side of it which I think is called Jackson Alley. 
It is not a very large alley, but there are quite a number of dwellings 
in it. That place is No. 34 H Street NE., Senator Thompson says. 
There is an entrance to this alley running from one street. You know 
how those entrances are, about 12 or 14 feet wide—maybe not that 
wide. Right at the entrance is a saloon, Babbington’s saloon. Of 
course the law does not compel you to refuse a license to those 
saloons near these alleys, but the law does say that you shall not put 
a saloon within 300 feet of an alley except by the unanimous vote 
of the board. I suppose the board voted unanimously to put that 
saloon there; but can you give me any reason why you should not 
have exercised the discretion with which you were vested, and have 
refused a license to this saloon. 

Mr. Smith. The Babbington situation did not seem severe to us. 

Senator Jones. You had a right to grant it. Then there are two 
or three other saloons around within three or four hundred feet of this 
alley. I suppose all the answer you could give is that it did not 
seem best to the board to refuse it. Is that true ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall two or three more on H Street. 

Senator Jones. They are within 300 or 400 feet of the alley. I do 
not know that they are on H Street, but they are right close to that 
alley. 

Then out on H Street we viewed another alley where a saloon was 
very near to one entrance, much less than 300 feet from the entrance, 
and then down this way [illustrating] at the other entrance to the 
alley, or the other exit, we found another saloon within 300 feet. So 
that we found out there at that alley, going and coming, a saloon within 
300 feet of the alley. What reason can you give for allowing a con¬ 
dition like that to exist under the law ? Who would be benefited by 
a situation like that ? 

Mr. Smith. I suppose the business that is there. 

Senator Jones. That is, the saloon business ? 

Mr. Smith. I suppose so. 

Senator Jones. That is the only thing that would be benefited, is 
it not ? 

Mr. Smith. Presumably. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 345 

Senator Jones. I just want to ask about one or two more places. 
First, on Seventh Street. Do you know where the McKinley Manual 
Training School is ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And the Polk School ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And there is another big school near the Polk 
School, is there not ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. The McKinley Manual Training School does not 
front on Seventh Street, but the side of it is on Seventh Street, and 
the Polk School does front on Seventh Street. They are, I judge, 
about 1,000 feet apart; maybe a little more or maybe a little less. 
Just across from the Polk School, across Seventh street, is the 
Thyson Hotel. You granted a saloon license to that hotel. 
It is within a hundred or two hundred feet of the school, and it is 
plain that this Thyson Hotel has had put up recently an addition to 
it, clearly for the purpose of bringing it under the law by giving it 50 
rooms. Granting that that hotel had 50 rooms, did not the board 
think that it ought to exercise its discretion to keep that barroom 
away from that school house, and refuse it a license ? 

Mr. Smith. Evidently it did not think so. 

Senator Jones. Can you give me any reason, now, why it should 
not have done it ? 

Mr. Smith. Not now. 

Senator Jones. Beyond this Thyson Hotel, and between the Polk 
School and the McKinley School, on the same side of the street, there 
is another saloon, and then on the other side of Seventh Street there 
is another saloon; so that there are at least three or four saloons 
around the Polk School and that other school and the McKinley 
Manual Training School. What reason can there be for permitting 
such a condition of things as that ? 

Mr. Smith. Just the reason, Senator, of wanting to be just to 
everybody. 

Senator Jones. To whom were you just, there, except the saloon 
men ? 

Mr. Smith. And the people who have their money invested 
there- 

Senator Jones. That is, the saloon men ? 

Mr. Smith. And as long as it permits a compliance with the law 
the board did not feel that much harm was done. 

Senator Jones. The schools protested, did they not; that is, the 
school officials? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. You did not think it was wise, even if those saloons 
were over 400 feet from these different schoolhouses, to exercise the 
discretion that the law vests in you to keep these saloons away from 
these institutions? 

Mr. Smith. We are vested with the authority to establish—or grant, 
rather—licenses without certain prescribed distances, and that being 
the case, we just granted them where we could. 

Senator Jones. You were granted authority to reduce the number 
of saloons, too, were you not ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. We were not required to. 



346 


EXCISE BOARD OE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Jones. You knew that the law contemplated that those 
saloons should be kept away from these schoolhouses, did you not, 
at least 400 feet ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Jones. And yet you granted a license for one just across 
the street from the Polk School ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. And you left these other three there within at 
least 450 feet of these other schools. You did not think that there 
was anything there demanding the exercise of your discretion to keep 
them out ? 

(The witness did not answer.) 

Senator Jones. Down on First and D Streets SW. there is the saloon 
of P. Smyth. That is located right on the corner of the crossing of 
D Street and First Street. Do you remember that ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Have you visited that location ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. You saw how it was, did you ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Do you remember how the entrance to that 
saloon was located ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; right in the corner. 

Senator Jones. But did you know how it was fronting—what 
street it fronted on ? 

Mr. Smith. On D Street—First Street. 

Senator Jones. First Street. Are you sure it fronted on First 
Street ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know the exact location. I know I have 
been there. 

Senator Jones. I will tell you this. Along D Street are residences— 
nearly all residences. 

Mr. Smith. Yes; that is right. 

Senator Jones. So it did not front on that street? 

Mr. Smith. No. 

Senator Jones. Do you not know that entrance fronts just as much 
on D Street as it does on First Street? It is just like this [illustrat¬ 
ing on paper]. If this is the crossing of the streets, there is the 
angle they make, and that entrance fronts right that way (indicat¬ 
ing) ; is not that true ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. It fronts just as much on this street as it does on 
that street [indicating] ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; that is right. 

Senator Jones. Do you not remember that this man applied for a 
transfer of license from 101 D Street to 319 First Street, 319 First 
Street being just exactly where it is with reference to 101 D Street? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Just merely changing the number and trying to 
put it on First Street instead of on D Street; and the board refused that 
application? That is correct? 

Mr. Smith. I am not sure about that. I know that the place is 
in existence. 

Senator Jones. Oh, yes, I know that; but I want to get at the 
facts as to how it is kept in existence. This transfer was refused 


EXCISE BOABD OF THE DISTEICT OF COLUMBIA. 


347 


about twice. Then there was an application put in for a license at 
101 D Street, and when the board acted upon it they gave the license 
at 319 First Street. Why did you do that? 

Mr. Smith. Because there was no business on the other side of 
the street. 

Senator Jones. All residences ? 

Mr. Smith. All residences; and on the side on which the license 
was granted there is business. 

Senator Jones. Do you know the character of it? 

Mr. Smith. I have seen it. 

Senator Jones. Did you examine it? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jones. Did you look through the cracks in that door 
that had a sign of somebody’s paint shop on it and see that there was 
absolutely nothing on the inside except an open space? Did you see 
that? 

Mr. Smith. Perhaps at this time that might obtain. 

Senator Jones. Oh, that has been up there for quite a while. 

Mr. Smith. But when we visited that situation there was a live 
business in this house. 

Senator Jones. There was no shop there at all in that place. There 
never has been any shop there; simply a sign up over the shop, 
1 ‘Paint shop,” but there is not any shop on the inside. 

Mr. Smith. The front room is used as a shop. 

Senator Jones. There is no front room there. 

Mr. Smith. They have done away with the room, then? 

Senator Jones. No; it has not been moved. Then there is another 
room there that has also a sign, “Paint shop.” That may be the one 
that I have in mind. But there are two of them—supposed to be two. 
There is one paint shop over that building where the window lights are 
out, but there is nothing in it now. There may have been when you 
were there. Next to that there is a separate place where there is not 
a building and never has been any building. The board might have 
plainly seen if they had looked through the cracks. This saloon is 
located just exactly in the same room, in the same building, at the 
same place that it was when you refused the license to it as at 101 
D Street. The entrance fronts just as much on D Street as it does on 
First Street. Do you think that the mere fact that it has put up the 
sign over the door of No. 319 First Street relocates that saloon and 
puts it where it is within the law ? 

Mr. Smith. We evidently have thought so. 

Senator Jones. Yes; you evidently did. You did not think that 
that was an evasion of the law. You think that is carrying out the 
spirit and intent of this law, do you ? 

Mr. Smith. I answered that; yes. 

Senator Jones. That is all that I have time to ask you now. 

Senator Thompson. I will read the provision of law relative to the 
location of saloons within 300 feet of slums or alleys occupied by 
residences [reading]: 

No saloon, barroom, or other place where intoxicating liquor is sold at retail shall 
be licensed, allowed, or maintained within 300 feet of any alleyway occupied for 
residences or of places commonly called slums, except upon the unanimous vote of 
all three members of said excise board. 

You remember that provision? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 


348 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Senator Thompson. Did you take that into consideration in con¬ 
nection with the granting of licenses at the ends of these alleyways, 
or near them ? 

Mr. Smith. I think it was borne in mind; yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Do you remember any instance where an ap¬ 
plication for the location of a saloon at the end of an alley, or near an 
alley, was denied because of one of the members objecting? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall any such. 

Senator Thompson. There was no time when a saloon applied for 
a license near one of these places where the people live in these holes 
in buildings—you might say—when a single member objected? 

Mr. Smith. If any such had, there would be no license there. There 
was no objection. 

Senator Thompson. And you think the location of a saloon right 
at the mouth of one of these worst slum districts—as in the case of 
the F. A. Sullivan place, for instance, at 1016 First Street, where the 
entrance was moved off of the slum side and put around on the other 
side—is justifiable under this law? 

Mr. Smith. I think it is justifiable; yes, sir. Our acts seem to 
justify it. 

Senator Thompson. In so far as this board is concerned, that pro¬ 
vision of the law has been a dead letter, has it not ? 

Mr. Smith. No. 

Senator Thompson. Did I not understand you to say that not a 
single member of the board up to the present time had made an objec¬ 
tion under this section of the law ? 

Mr. Smith. In the 112 cases of rejection there may be some objec¬ 
tion. I will have to look it up. 

Senator Thompson. But you have no recollection of any saloon 
applying for a location in any one of these especially objectionable 
sections covered by this law when there was any member of the 
board who objected ? 

Mr. Smith. I have no recollection. 

Senator Thompson. Do you recollect the saloon of M. J. Sheehan, 
at Second and H Streets NE., which is a residence section of the 
city ? To refresh your recollection it is right down under the railroad 
tracks as they run into the depot, standing alone at the corner. 

Mr. Smith. Yes. That is on H Street. 

Senator Thompson. Do you remember the location of the house 
of the Little Sisters of the Poor, right cater-cornered across from that 
saloon ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes; on H Street. 

Senator Thompson. And there is a long line of residences on the 
other side of this saloon. Do you remember that? There are resi¬ 
dences in there right across the street. 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. Do you remember the protest filed in that 
case ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall the protest. 

Senator Thompson. The saloon that is located out there is abso¬ 
lutely alone ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. Is it your construction of the provision of 
the law as to the location of saloons in residential sections, that a 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 349 

saloon can be located like that, right in a residence section, where 
there are no business houses of any kind except the saloon ? 

That provision reads [reading]: 

Provided, That no license shall be granted for any saloon or barroom on any side of 
any square, block, or tract of land where less than 50 per centum of the foot frontage 
not including saloons or hotels and clubs having barroom licenses under this section, 
is used for business purposes; nor shall intoxicating liquors be sold at wholesale out¬ 
side of the business districts as above provided. 

Do you think that is a fair interpretation of that section of the 
law, to allow a saloon to be located where the only business property 
is that of that saloon, in a residence section ? 

Mr. Smith. We take it that the Union Station and the tracks 
thereto is a rather live business, Senator. 

Senator Thompson. Do you count that as a business within the 
meaning of this law ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Thompson. You know this saloon is at least several blocks 
from the Union Station itself, do you not ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not think it is several blocks. 

Senator Thompson. There is no business at all, there are no houses 
of business, between the station and this saloon ? 

* Mr. Smith. There is no house of business, but there is a situation 
used for business purposes—the railroad. 

Senator Thompson. Do you not think that that is a particularly 
objectionable place for the location of a saloon, at the underground 
passageway there ? 

Mr. Smith. It does not seem so. 

Senator Thompson. And in the face of the protests of the residents 
against the location of this place? 

Mr. Smith. I do not recall the protests. They are on file, if there 
are such. 

Senator Thompson. You remember that the rest of that block, 
either way, for that matter, is vacant so far as business houses are con¬ 
cerned ? The only business conducted there is that of the railroad ? 

Mr. Smith. South of H Street there is a vacant block. 

Senator Thompson. The only business there is that of the saloon, 
and these railroad tracks that run into the depot a block or two away. 
The depot is two or three blocks away. 

Mr. Smith. The depot; yes—but the tracks. 

Senator Thompson. You consider those tracks constitute a business ? 

Mr. Smith. A business frontage. 

Senator Thompson. Within the contemplation of this act? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

(At 1.20 o’clock p. m. the committee took a recess until 3.30 
o’clock p. m.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION. 

The committee reassembled, pursuant to the taking of the recess, 
at 3.30 o’clock p. m. 

Present: Senators Sheppard, Thompson, Jones, and Dillingham. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. I notice that 
the members of the excise board are here. If any one of them wishes 
to make a statement, we will be glad to hear him. 


350 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Mr. Smith. You are apparently, Mr. Chairman, about to close the 
taking of testimony to-day, and if so, with your permission we will 
go on. If not, I would rather have my colleagues later on read the 
testimony given by Mr. Wilson. 

The Chairman. I think we will try to close to-day, in view of the 
fact that Congress adjourns Thursday. 

Mr. Smith. With your permission, we will defer what we have to 
say until a little later. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Costello here, or is Mr. O’Connor here, or is 
Lieut. Duvall here? 

Mr. Duvall. I am here, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JAMES A. DUVALL. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Will you state your full name and occupation? 

Mr. Duvall. James A. Duvall; lieutenant, Metropolitan police, 
sixth precinct. 

The Chairman. You are acquainted with O’Connor’s saloon, in 
your precinct ? 

Mr. Duvall. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The saloon of Jeremiah O’Connor? 

Mr. Duvall. Yes. 

The Chairman. What do you know about it, Lieutenant? 

Mr. Duvall. In what respect, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. As to the manner in which it is conducted, as to 
whether it is frequented by a reputable class of people, etc. ? 

Mr. Duvall. So far as being conducted properly is concerned, I 
have nothing to say against it and its management; but the place is 
frequented by all classes of people, and a large per cent, I might say, 
are of a disreputable character. I would venture to say that from 
50 to 75 per cent of the patrons of this place and kindred places in 
this particular vicinity are disreputable people; that is, they are peo¬ 
ple of questionable character. 

The Chairman. Are they at all disorderly in this saloon, so far as 
you know ? 

Mr. Duvall. Personally, I have never seen any disorder in it. 

The Chairman. So far as you know it has always been conducted 
in an orderly manner ? 

Mr. Duvall. So far as the character of the patrons would permit, 
I have no doubt. 

The Chairman. That is sufficient, Lieutenant, unless you want to 
state something else. 

Mr. Duvall. There is nothing else that I know that I could en¬ 
lighten the committee on. 

The Chairman. Do Chinamen frequent that place? 

Mr. Duvall. Personally, I do not believe that I could say I have 
ever seen a Chinaman enter or leave the place. I do not recall that I 
have. I may have, but I do not recall it. 

The Chairman. Does he conduct a restaurant there? 

Mr. Duvall. Who? 

The Chairman. O’Connor. 

Mr. Duvall. Not now; no. 

The Chairman. Do women enter O’Connor’s place? 

Mr. Duvall. Not now, I think. 

The Chairman. Not now? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


351 


Mr. Duvall. They did before this law went into effect. 

The Chairman. They did ? 

Mr. Duvall. They had a place partitioned off on one side, just a 
kind of a little stall, where women would go up with a growler, and 
they would fill the growler and hand it out to them; and they were 
served in that way. I have never seen or known of women drinking 
anything in the place. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JAMES F. BECKETT. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your full name? 

Mr. Beckett. James F. Beckett. 

The Chairman. Your occupation is what? 

Mr. Beckett. Private, Metropolitan police department. 

The Chairman. What do you know about Jeremiah O’Connor's 
barroom at No. 115 Four-and-a-half Street? 

Mr. Beckett. I do not know much about it. I have been on that 
beat, though, for years. I believe the place is conducted all right. 
The Chairman. Do women frequent it ? 

Mr. Beckett. Not now. 

The Chairman. Did they once do so ? 

Mr. Beckett. Yes, Senator, they did; quite a number. 

The Chairman. Before this law went into effect ? 

Mr. Beckett. Yes; before this law went into effect. 

The Chairman. Up to the time that this law went into effect ? 

Mr. Beckett. Up to the time; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do Chinamen go there? 

Mr. Beckett. I have never seen one there. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about the class of people 
that go there ? 

Mr. Beckett. Well, it is generally the working class of people, from 
my observation, and some few that are of bad character. 

The Chairman. What about the reputation of O’Connor, person¬ 
alty $ 

Mr. Beckett. As far as I know, above the average. He is all right. 
The Chairman. What is the reputation of his place ? 

Mr. Beckett. The reputation is, I would say, of good character, so 
far as his place is concerned. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. EDWARD CURRY. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. State your full name. 

Mr. Curry. Edward Curry. 

The Chairman. What is your position? 

Mr. Curry. Sergeant, Metropolitan police. 

The Chairman. Are you acquainted with Jeremiah O’Connor? 

Mr. Curry. I am, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you acquainted with his place at Mo. 115 
Four-and-a-half Street ? 

Mr. Curry. Yes. 

The Chairman. In what manner is the saloon conducted s 


352 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Curry. As good as any saloon can be conducted. 

The Chairman. What do you know about O’Conner personally ? 

Mr. Curry. O’Connor personally is a very good man. 

The Chairman. Do men and women of questionable character 
frequent that place day and night? 

Mr. Curry. Some men do; not women. 

The Chairman. Some men of questionable character? 

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether O’Connor knows the char¬ 
acter of the people who frequent his place ? 

Mr. Curry. I do not know. 

The Chairman. You say women do not go there? 

Mr. Curry. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did they once go there? 

Mr. Curry. They once went there, but not to drink. They went 
there to buy liquor; not in the barroom proper, but in a place in the 
back of the bar where they went in. 

The Chairman. To buy it and take it away ? 

Mr. Curry. Yes. 

The Chairman. Were they white women or colored women? 

Mr. Curry. Mostly colored. 

The Chairman. What is the race of the patrons, mostly, of that 
saloon—white or colored ? 

Mr. Curry. They are both white and colored, but I think there are 
more colored than white. 

The Chairman. I do not think it is necessary, Mr. O’Connor, to 
call these other people. There seem to be enough here. Sergeant 
Johnson will be excused if he is here. 

Is Mr. F. A. Sullivan here ? 

Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. FLORENCE A. SULLIVAN. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. State your name ? 

Mr. Sullivan. Florence A. Sullivan. 

The Chairman. Where is your bar located ? 

Mr. Sullivan. At No. 1016 First Street NE. 

The Chairman. The committee will be very glad to hear any 
statement that you may want to offer regarding your place. 

Mr. Sullivan. I understood that there was an accusation made 
this morning by members of the investigating committee that I 
had closed an entrance on Tenth Street and opened one on First 
Street and so tried to evade the new law. 

The Chairman. The statement was that apparently that had been 
done; that the appearance on that side of the saloon led to that con¬ 
clusion. 

Mr. Sullivan. I have been here for 13 years and there never has 
been an entrance there in my time. That entrance was closed 18 
years ago. 

The Chairman. There was an entrance there at that time ? 

Mr. Sullivan. A different business was conducted there then. I 
believe there was a grocery store there. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 353 

The Chairman. Why is there a light over the place where that 
entrance was closed? 

Mr. Sullivan. A light? 

The Chairman. Yes; is there not a light there? 

Mr. Sullivan. There is a light on the corner. 

The Chairman. Is it not just over the place where the entrance 
would come? 

Mr. Sullivan. I want the establishment known to the neighbor¬ 
hood regardless of what street you walk on. I think it is fair to have 
a light so as to display your business. 

The Chairman. One can see by looking at that side that there was 
an entrance there. 

Mr. Sullivan. There never has been since it has been a bar. 

The Chairman. I say there was an entrance there at one time; you 
can see that. 

Mr. Sullivan. I never have seen one there. 

The Chairman. You never saw the entrance? 

Mr. Sullivan. No, sir. 

The Chairman. But you can see from the appearance of that wall 
that there was an entrance there, and that it has been closed. 

Mr. Sullivan. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is all the member of the committee stated. 
You state that the entrance was closed before you came there? 

Mr. Sullivan. Yes; and before my predecessor came there. 

The Chairman. Before your predecessor came there, you say? 

Mr. Sullivan. Yes; about 18 years ago. 

The Chairman. Did the man who closed it run the place as a 
saloon ? 

Mr. Sullivan. I do not know who closed it, but I imagine it was 
closed by my predecessor. 

The Chairman. You imagine that it was closed by your prede¬ 
cessor ? 

Mr. Sullivan. Yes. 

The Chairman. Who was he ? 

Mr. SuIlivan. John J. Sullivan. 

The Chairman. Was he any relation of yours? 

Mr. Sullivan. Yes. 

The Chairman. What relation ? 

Mr. Sullivan. First cousin. 

The Chairman. That is about all that was stated regarding that 
entrance. 

Mr. Sullivan. That is the only explanation I have got to offer. 
I want to state that that entrance has not been closed by me, but I 
have conducted business for 13 years there, in a proper, orderly 
fashion, and never had a police report against me up to this present day. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. PATRICK JOSEPH McDONALD. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your full name? 

Mr. McDonald. Patrick Joseph McDonald. 

The Chairman. Where is your place of business ? 

Mr. McDonald. 643 Pennsylvania Avenue. 


354 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The Chairman. We will be glad to hear anything you may have to 
say regarding your place ? 

Mr. McDonald. I have not anything to say, only I heard that 
there was some talk and my name was brought up here this morning, 
and I am up here to answer any questions you might ask me in regard 
to that place and how I bought it and what I paid for it. I heard 
that there was some talk about it up here this morning, and I wanted 
to explain to you how I did buy it and how I paid for it. 

The Chairman. I think the only question regarding your place 
this morning was as to the system of measurement by the board 
between your saloon and the church. 

Mr. McDonald. Senator, you can measure that any way—I 
measured it twenty times before I bought the place—and it is over 
400 feet any way you measure it. I defy anybody to say that it is 
not, because it is. 

The Chairman. That is sufficient. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. HERBERT W. KLINE. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your business ? 

Mr. Kline. I am superintendent of the Gospel Mission. 

The Chairman. Are there some saloons within 400 feet of your place ? 

Mr. Kline. There were, but there are not now. We are situated 
in what we may call a dangerous section of the city, and there were 35 
saloons within three blocks of our mission before the excise law was 
put in effect. Thirteen of them have been removed, but it is still 
dangerous. Our mission is located in a section that is more or less 
inhabited now by the ex-inhabitants of the former red-light district, 
and Mr. O’Connor’s saloon on Four-and-a-half Street and the Phila¬ 
delphia House and the saloon of M. J. Lynch are saloons that cater 
to the vilest of the vile and the weakest of the weak. Mr. O’Connor’s 
saloon seems to be patronized chiefly by about 50 per cent of colored 
patrons, and a large per cent of the white patrons are men who are 
continually sent to the workhouse for drunken and disorderly conduct. 

The Chairman. What opportunities have you to know what class 
of people they are ? 

Mr. Kline. Living there and noticing. 

The Chairman. Where do you live? 

Mr. Kline. Right on the same street, within eyesight of this 
saloon; and I have noticed men which we call panhandlers, which 
make a business of nothing but begging, which come to our mission, 
and they are his greatest patrons; and I have seen men stagger from 
our mission door that could hardly walk to get across the street, go 
right across and into O’Connor’s saloon to drink. The men of the 
police force are not allowed to go in there to make arrests; it seems 
that it is orders from headquarters that they shall not; but there are 
more arrests made at the patrol box opposite his saloon than at any 
five other patrol boxes in the city of Washington. 

The Chairman. How far is it from your mission to his saloon ? 

Mr. Kline. About 600 feet. The Philadelphia House is within 
100 feet of one of the worst slum courts of the city. Mr. O’Connor’s 
saloon is on an alley that is inhabited by two or three families, and 
the rear entrances of those vile places on Missouri Avenue run in, and 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


355 


I will say that of the whisky bottles that we pick up around the 
mission and around the neighborhood, 75 per cent of those bottles 
that are sold in the bottle trade to these people have Mr. O’Connor’s 
name on the label. We believe, because of the viciousnes 3 of that 
neighborhood and the bad repute of it, it being known as the Bowery 
of Washington, that all saloons from Sixth Street to the Capitol 
ought to be eliminated because of the notoriety of the neighborhood 
and the inhabitants and denizens of the place, and for protection of 
the few decent people that live in that neighborhood. The decent 
neighborhood is chiefly made up of foreigners, of Greeks and Italians; 
and in Jackson Hall Court, where the houses are insanitary- 

Tho Chairman. Is that court near the Philadelphia House ? 

Mr. Kline. That is near the Philadelphia House, and the little 
children there have to put up with tho obnoxious scenes of drunken 
men and women that come into that court, and drink whisky 
from bottles, and fight, and we have seen officers bringing out of that 
court women with their throats cut, and officers frequently carry 
women out of there to the patrol wagons or take them to the patrol 
box a block and a half from that place. 

The Chairman. How far is Jackson Court from O’Connor’s place? 

Mr. Kline. From O’Connor’s place it is beyond the 400-foot limit, 
but it is right on an inhabited court, and it is an alley where depre¬ 
dations are committed every night, and at the closing hours of these 
saloons I have seen as high as three patrolmen and two detectives 
and two bicycle officers there, compelled to be there to keep order. 
That shows the viciousness of these people. I have seen two patrol 
wagons come up there and be fdled with people and take them off 
inside of a half an hour on Saturday night. 

The Chairman. Taken from where ? • 

Mr. Kline. Taken from in front of O’Connor’s saloon and th9 
Philadelphia House and from in front of the cheap Chinese restau¬ 
rants there. The only officer I ever heard preach a sermon was one 
of the officers that took up the people that these saloons spew out 
there at night, and he begged the people to go home, and to remember 
the Sabbath day and keep it holy. 

The Chairman. Have you ever been taken in the patrol wagon? 

Mr. Kline. Yes. 

The Chairman. Why? 

Mr. Kline. I would be glad to have that case transferred from 
the police court and tried by this committee. 

The Chairman. Yes; but it is nothing but fair that you should 
answer these questions. You made the other statements about these 
other people. 

Mr. Kline. It happened that an officer arrested several men—I 
believe drunken men—that came from O’Connor’s saloon, and in 
taking them to the station house it seemed that they were anxious 
to fillup the patrol wagon, and they stopped before my mission and 
took up a man that I had sent to work that day at the George Wash¬ 
ington University. He was a sober man, and he had worked all day 
an°d had just eaten his evening lunch at our restaurant and had 
stepped outside at the moment that patrol wagon was coming up 
the street. The officer jumped off the patrol wagon and arrested 
that innocent man. I remonstrated with the officer and told him 
that he was arresting a man who was no vagrant or drunkard, but 

84513°—s. Doc. 981, 63~3-24 



356 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


who had worked that day, and instantly the officer threw me in the 
wagon and said, “You go too.” 

The Chairman. Oh, I see. 

Senator Jones. Did you make your protest to the excise board 
before these licenses were granted ? 

Mr. Kline. Yes. 

The Chairman. I have here a letter from Mr. Jeremiah A. Cos¬ 
tello, which reads as follows: 

Washington, D. C., February 28, 1915. 


Hon. Morris Sheppard, 

Chairman Committee Investigating Excise Board, 

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: I respectfully request a hearing before your honorable committee for the 
purpose of rebutting the testimony of Mr. Albert Shoemaker, attorney for the Anti- 
Saloon League, regarding the proximity of my place of business to a “now established 
house of religious worship,” and respectfully request that you subpoena the following: 
Mr. Harry Seamark, Sixth and G Streets NW. 

Mr. David Gatti, 706 Eleventh Street NW. 

Rev. B. Lambrides, 423 Massachusetts Avenue NW. 

Mr. P. K. Chaconis, 943 Massachusetts Avenue NW. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

J. A. Costello. 


Is Mr. Costello here ? 

Mr. Costello. Yes; I am here. 

The Chairman. Do you wish to say something before I call for 
these witnesses ? 

Mr. Costello. I do. 

The Chairman. I believe you have been on the stand before? 

Mr. Costello. No; I have not. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 


TESTIMONY OF MR. JEREMIAH A. COSTELLO. 


(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your address ? 

Mr. Costello. Sixth and G Streets NW. 

The Chairman. That is where your barroom is located ? 

Mr. Costello. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Very well; we will hear what you have to say re¬ 
garding this. 

Mr. Costello. Senator, I should like to refute Mr. Shoemaker’s 
statement as to the alleged church across the street from our place. 

The Chairman. Very well; let us hear what you have to say. 

Mr. Costello. Mr. Shoemaker said that we were directly opposite 
a church, or within 100 feet of a church. I understand that the law 
is that a saloon shall not be within 400 feet of an established house 
of religious worship. I understand that religious worship is carried 
on in practically every house. My house has religious worship. The 
particular house of worship in question is a business place, pure and 
simple. 

The Chairman. What house is that ? What is it ? 

Mr. Costello. It is a house occupied by Mr. Seamark, automobile 
and motor-cycle findings, the largest bicycle establishment in Wash¬ 
ington. He occupies the ground floor of that building and the build¬ 
ing adjoining. The upper portion of that building is a hall, the same 
as is above my own place. 

The Chairman. What congregation occupies it ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 357 

Mr. Costello. There is a Greek congregation occupies it. 

The Chairman. How long have they occupied it ? 

Mr. Costello. They have been there, I think, two or three years; 
possibly longer. They are there only temporarily. 

The Chairman. How was it occupied before they had it ? 

Mr. Costello. Originally it was a Jew synagogue, and they sold 
the property to Gatti, and he remodeled the property and rented 
the ground floor to Seamark, and the upper floor he kept for lodge 
purposes, or whatever purposes he could get tenants for it for. He 
got as tenants that Greek congregation. I do not know how often 
they meet; Sundays usually. 

The Chairman. Do any lodges meet up there ? 

Mr. Costello. Not that I know of. 

The Chairman. It is rented solely by this Greek congregation? 

Mr. Costello. Yes, I believe they are the only tenants upstairs. 

The Chairman. Do you know the size of that congregation ? 

Mr. Costello. I presume all the Greeks in Washington are in it. 
I do not believe there is another Greek church in Washington. 

The Chairman. That is the only Greek church in Washington? 

Mr. Costello. That is, as I understand it. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else? 

Mr. Costello. Only that Mr. Shoemaker said there was a little 
bicycle shop in the basement of this building occupied as a church. I 
claim this is a big bicycle establishment on the ground floor, with a 
little hall upstairs used for such religious purposes as any hall might 
be occupied for. 

The Chairman . Is the room on the ground floor larger than the room 
occupied for religious purposes upstairs ? 

Mr. Costello. Most assuredly. It takes the ground floor of that 
building and that floor of the adjoining building. 

The Chairman. It is in the adjoining building also? 

Mr. Costello. Yes. 

The Chairman. What I mean is, In that building is the bicycle shop 
larger, or is the part occupied for religious purposes larger? 

Mr. Costello. They are both of the same size, I presume. 

The Chairman. Are they of the same height? 

Mr. Costello. I do not know about that. I do not know the 
dimensions or measurements of the rooms; but I presume they are 
the same size. 

I will state that we have a church closer than that. We have one 
right over my place—a Catholic Italian church They are going to 
meet there next Thursday. 

The Chairman. You mean over your place of business? 

Mr. Costello. Yes; over my place of business. We rent to other 
lodges, and we do not consider it an established place of religious 
worship, because we rent to transient tenants. 

Senator Jones. The other is not very transient. It has been 
there three or four years. 

Mr. Costello. The pastor, I believe, is present. I think they are 
only there until they get a more suitable place. 

Senator Jones. They are there and have been there two or three 
years ? 

Mr. Costello. I do not know how long. 

Senator Jones. You do not know how long, but it is three or four 
years ? 


358 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Costello. Yes; it is three or four years. 

Sanator Jones. It i3 fitted up as a regular church place? The 
windows look like church windows. 

Mr. Costello. Yes. 

Senator Jones. They have an entrance from the outside going 
directly into the church ? 

Mr. Costello. Yes; there is no question about that. 

The Chairman. That is all the committee wishes to ask, unless 
you want to add something. 

Mr. Costello. There is nothing further, Senator. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF REV. B. LAMBRIDES. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Will you need an interpreter ? 

Mr. Lambrides. I think so. 

(The witness testified in part through Peter K. Chaconas, acting 
as interpreter, and in part directly.) 

The Chairman. How long has your congregation occupied its 
present quarters ? 

Mr. Lambrides. I do not know exactly how long, because I have 
only been here, in place of another minister, about six months. 

The Chairman. You do not know how long the congregation has 
been there ? 

Mr. Lambrides. No, sir; because I have only been here in place 
of another minister, who went back to Greece, and I am just here on 
his part until he conies back. 

The Chairman. Did you understand the testimony that Mr. Cos¬ 
tello gave a few moments ago ? 

Mr. Lambrides. Yes; I understand. 

The Chairman. You occupy the upper room that was referred to 
by Mr. Costello ? 

Mr. Lambrides. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is a Greek church ? 

Mr. Lambrides. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is it the only Greek church in Washington? 

Mr. Lambrides. Yes; the only Greek church here. 

The Chairman. What is the size of the congregation—how many 
members have you? 

Mr. Lambrides. About 250 members. 

The Chairman. Do you know about the size of the church room? 

Mr. Lambrides. It is some larger than this room. 

The Chairman. It is somewhat larger than this committee room 
in which we are holding this hearing ? 

Mr. Lambrides. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How often do you hold services? 

Mr. Lambrides. Every Sunday. 

The Chairman. Morning and night? 

Mr. Lambrides. Mornings, yes; and sometimes on week days. On 
every Greek holiday, whatever day it is in the year. 

The Chairman. Is this what is known as the Greek Catholic church ? 

Mr. Lambrides. It is the Greek order of Catholics, known by that 
name. 

The Chairman. That is all. 

(The witness was thereupon excused). 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTEICT OF COLUMBIA. 359 

TESTIMONY OF MR. HARRY F. SEAMARK. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. State your name and address, please. 

Mr. Seamark. Harry F. Seamark; southeast corner of Sixth and 
G Streets NW. 

The Chairman. Do you own the property occupied by this Greek 
church that you have just heard testified about? 

Mr. Seamark. No; I rent it. 

The Chairman. You rent it? 

Mr. Seamark. The lower section. 

The Chairman. You rent the bicycle and automobile shop under 
the church ? 

Mr. Seamark. Yes; underneath the church. 

The Chairman. About what is the size of the room you occupy as 
compared with the church room in that one building ? 

Mr. Seamark. It is practically the same, with the exception of the 
space of the steps that lead up into the second floor; about 60 feet 
long and about 22 feet wide. 

The Chairman. Is the height about the same ? 

Mr. Seamark. I have never been upstairs. I should imagine it 
would be about the same. 

The Chairman. You have never been upstairs ? 

Mr. Seamark. No, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in business there ? 

Mr. Seamark. I have been there five years. 

The Chairman. How long has this Greek church been there ? 

Mr. Seamark. I do not know whether it is the same particular 
church which has been there since I have been there or not. We 
had the lower section remodeled when we moved from Sixth and F 
to Sixth and G Streets. 

The Chairman. The lower section was remodeled ? 

Mr. Seamark. Yes. 

The Chairman. But the upper section was not ? 

Mr. Seamark. I do not believe that was touched. 

The Chairman. Who owns the property ? 

Mr. Seamark. Gatti owns the place, and when I moved there it 
was the understanding I was to have the second floor; but owing 
to the fact that the people who had it were waiting to accumulate 
money enough to move out, I did not get it; and then this war came 
on, and I think whatever money they had they loaned to the Greek 
Government, and that simply kept them from getting out and getting 
a new place, and Mr. Gatti remodeled the next place for me, so that 
I would have enough room. 

The Chairman. You have been there six years ? 

Mr. Seamark. Yes. 

The Chairman. And this same Greek church was there when you 
moved in ? 

Mr. Seamark. I could not tell you whether it was the same church. 

The Chairman. It was a Greek church ? 

Mr. Seamark. I do not know. Somebody occupied it. They 
only use it on Sunday, and we are not open on Sunday. 

The Chairman. Do you remember when it was a J ewish synagogue ? 

Mr. Seamark. Yes; about 25 years ago. 


360 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

The Chairman. You do not know when it ceased to be a Jewish 
synagogue and became a Greek church ? 

Mr. Seamark. I recall when they moved the church up to Sixth 
and I Streets. 

The Chairman. Do you know when they moved it? 

Mr. Seamark. That has been 10 years ago. 

The Chairman. You do not know whether the present church took 
possession there then or not, but you do know that the church was 
there when you moved there six years ago ? 

Mr. Seamark. There was some organization there. Whether it 
was the Greek Church or not, I do not know. 

The Chairman. You know there is a Greek Church there now, do 
you not ? 

Mr. Seamark. Yes. 

The Chairman. But you do not know how long this present con¬ 
gregation has been there and occupying it ? 

Mr. Seamark. No, sir. 

Senator Jones. But it was being occupied as a church when you 
went in ? 

Mr. Seamark. I presume for religious services ? 

Senator Jones. And has been ever since? 

Mr. Seamark. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is all. 

We issued a subpoena for Mr. Gatti, but I am informed through 
the Sergeant at Arms’ office that they could not find him. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. PETER K. CHACONAS. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your full name ? 

Mr. Chacon as. Peter K. Chaconas. 

The Chairman. What is your residence? 

Mr. Chaconas. I am a grocer. I live at No. 943 Massachusetts 
Avenue. 

The Chairman. Is that where you live and have your business? 

Mr. Chaconas. No, sir; that is where I live. My business is that 
of a grocer, at Ninth Street and Louisiana Avenue. 

The Chairman. Your business is at Ninth Street and Louisiana 
Avenue, and your residence is at No. 943 Massachusetts Avenue? 

Mr. Chaconas. That is right. 

The Chairman. What do you know about the location of this 
Greek Church we have just been talking about ? 

Mr. Chaconas. I know the location is right on the corner, and 
there has been a Greek Church there; the only Greek Church that 
we have in the city of Washington. 

The Chairman. Are you a member of that congregation ? 

Mr. Chaconas. I am a member and one of the committee. 

The Chairman. You are an officer of that church? 

Mr. Chaconas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been an officer of the church? 

Mr. Chaconas. Three years, and this is the second term. It is 
going on to three and a half years. 

The Chairman. Does the place you hold in the church correspond 
to that of steward in some of our Protestant churches? What is 
the character of your office? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 361 

Mr. Chacon as. We control the church—1 mean the affairs, the 
money part. 

The Chairman. Trustee? 

Mr. Ciiaconas. Trustee; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long has this present congregation been util¬ 
izing that building in that way ? 

Mr. Chaconas. So far as 1 know, it is over five or six—near to 
seven—years. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in Washington? 

Mr. Chaconas. I have been here 18 years. 

The Chairman. Have you had a Greek church here all that time? 

Mr. Chaconas. We had one since 13 years ago—13 or 14 years ago. 

The Chairman. When-it first started, what building did it occupy? 

Mr. Chaconas. It was in a building on Seventh and Louisiana 
Avenue. 

The Chairman. You moved from there to this present place? 

Mr. Chaconas. No; we moved from there to No. 600-and-some- 
thing C Street, on the top floor, and then the committee taken this 
place that we have now, and moved in there, and we have been there 
ever since. 

The Chairman. You have been there some five or six years ? 

Mr. Chaconas. Yes; it is over five years, I am sure. 

The Chairman. What is the size of the congregation? 

Mr. Chaconas. I do not know exactly the size, but it is a great 
deal larger than this room. 

The Chairman. I say, what is the size of the congregation—what 
is the number of members ? 

Mr. Chaconas. Oh, the number of members? 

The Chairman. I think your pastor testified it was 250? 

Mr. Chaconas. Two hundred and fifty to 270 now, at the present 
time, that belong in it. 

The Chairman. Is there another saloon near you besides Mr. 
Costello’s ? 

Mr. Chaconas. I do not know. 

The Chairman. Is there one across the street from Costello’s? 

Mr. Chaconas. I do not think so; no. I know there is not. 
There used to be a drug store, and there is a fruit store there now. 
I do not know of any saloon. 

The Chairman. Do you consider that the church is permanently 
located there? 

Mr. Chaconas. Well, 1 do not consider that, because there is a 
committee out now trying to buy a piece of property to build a 
church on. 

The Chairman. You are considering buying property somewhere 
else? 

Mr. Chaconas. Yes; but when, I can not tell. 

The Chairman. When, you can not tell? 

Mr. Chaconas. No, sir. 

The Chairman. What progress have you made toward raising the 
necessary funds ? 

Mr. Chaconas. Oh, the funds can easily be raised if they find a 
locality they want. 

The Chairman. The trouble, then, is rather in finding a suitable 
location than in raising the funds ? 


362 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Chacon as. I suppose so. 

The Chairman. Have you a lease there, or are you just renting 
from month to month or from year to year ? 

Mr. Chaconas. We had a lease, but the lease expired about seven 
months ago, and we are there just as monthly tenants, but with the 
understanding that they can stay there as long as they want to. 

Senator Jones. Who was in this before you went in? Did you 
succeed the Jewish congregation? 

Mr. Chaconas. No. 

Senator Jones. Who was occupying the place before you went in? 

Mr. Chaconas. I do not know. I could not tell. I was not one 
of the committee at that time. 

The Chairman. That will be all, Mr. Chaconas. All the witnesses 
who have been examined may be excused. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MISS SALINDA A. WILMOT. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your full name, please ? 

Miss Wilmot. Salinda A. Wilmot. 

The Chairman. Where do you live ? 

Miss Wilmot. 2618 Thirteenth Street. 

The Chairman. What is your business ? 

Miss Wilmot. The Temple School of Shorthand and Typewriting. 

The Chairman. Are you the proprietor of that school? 

Miss Wilmot. I am one of the proprietors. 

The Chairman. Will you state the location of your school ? 

Miss Wilmot. It is at No. 1417 G Street. 

The Chairman. What saloons is it near? 

Miss Wilmot. McMillen s is two doors away. 

The Chairman. Two doors away ? 

Miss Wilmot. Yes; they are No. 1421. 

The Chairman. How much of that building do you occupy? 

Miss Wilmot. The whole building, except two rooms and the cafe 
on the first floor. We have nothing to do with that. 

The Chairman. What is the size of that building; how many 
stories has it ? 

Miss Wilmot. Five stories. W T ehave four stories, except two rooms. 

The Chairman. How many students have you? 

Miss Wilmot. In the wintertime, about this time, we average 
from 450 to 500. 

The Chairman. Is your school continuous throughout the year? 

Miss Wilmot. Throughout the year. In the summer time, it 
would average about 250 to 300; and it is day and night, as well. 

The Chairman. Day and night? 

Miss Wilmot. Yes. 

The Chairman. Both sexes are represented? 

Miss Wilmot. Yes; and the average age in the day time from 16 to 
25, and at night from about 20 to 45. The average is some place in 
there. 

The Chairman. Did you protest against the renewal of the license 
for this saloon? 

Miss Wilmot. Yes, we did. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


363 


The Chairman. And against its establishment in the neighbor¬ 
hood? 6 

Miss Wilmot. Very vigorously. We were the main protestants. 
We felt that it was a little too near for so many young men. 

The Chairman. How long has your school been established ? 

Miss Wilmot. We have been established 12 years this coming 
Se ' unber. 



Le Chairman. Have you been running there at that place for 12 


years ? 


Miss Wilmot. No; we have been here nearly seven years. 

The Chairman. At this present place nearly seven years? 

Miss Wilmot. Yes, and we were here seven years in No. 1421, in 
the building in which the saloon is now located, and several years over 
Gasch & Birge, on New York Avenue, when we first started. Each 
time we moved we had outgrown the place where we were located at 
that time. 

The Chairman. Did you testify at the hearing before the excise 
board ? 

Miss Wilmot. Yes, both Miss Stevens and I testified, and several 
of our teachers. 

The Chairman. And your testimony was similar to what you have 
given here ? 

Miss Wilmot. To what I have given now? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Miss Wilmot. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did the owner of the property also testify ? 

Miss Wilmot. Yes; Mr. Gardner owns the ground and Judge Kim¬ 
ball owns the building, and they were both down there. 

The Chairman. They both protested ? 

Miss Wilmot. They both protested as vigorously as we did. 

The Chairman. How many other saloons are near you ? 

Miss Wilmot. Opposite us I think is one, in the Biggs Building. 

The Chairman. Across the street ? 

Miss Wilmot. Yes. We did not protest the granting of that 
license because they were there before we were, and we felt that we 
had no right to interfere with a business that was already estab¬ 
lished; and besides, it was across the street. We had no business to 
move there if we minded what was there already. 

Then there is one back of us; one, two doors above, which is Mc- 
Millen’s; one on Fifteenth Street between F and G, I think; and 
some others, but I do not locate them particularly. 

The Chairman. You protested mainly against McMillen? 

Miss Wilmot. Yes; against the unnecessary proximity. 

The Chairman. There are several saloons within 400 feet of your 
school ? 

Miss Wilmot. Yes; but we did not consider it was quite the thing 
to grant a license when the others were there already. That seemed 
going out of the way to grant a license. 

The Chairman. What proportion of your students is male and 
what proportion is female ? 

Miss Wilmot. In the daytime there are more female and at night 
there are more male students. I suppose there are 75 per cent of 
males at night and about 75 per cent of females in the daytime. 

The Chairman. Is there not another business school near you ? 


364 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Miss Wilmot. There is a small school that has just moved there. 
You could hardly call it a business school. 

The Chairman. How is that ? 

Miss Wilmot. I say you could hardly call it a business school. 

The Chairman. It is a shorthand school, is it not? 

Miss Wilmot. It is teaching shorthand and typewriting, but it is 
not large enough to be called a school vet. 

The Chairman. It does not go into the other branches of business 
and training? 

Miss Wilmot. I think not; yes. We are very careful to know 
nothing about our competitors. 

The Chairman. What lines does your school cover ? 

Miss Wilmot. Shorthand and typewriting, and preparation for 
civil-service examinations. Most of our people go into the Govern¬ 
ment service. We do not drill much for commercial positions; we 
drill for a higher class of work than that. 

The Chairman. Do you teach mathematics and English ? 

Miss Wilmot. Yes; English and spelling. 

The Chairman. The common branches of academic training? 

Miss Wilmot. We do not go into the lower grade or high-school 
work, because people who come to us have had that already. 

The Chairman. It is mainly mathematics and English for business 
purposes ? 

Miss Wilmot. No; it is principally for civil-service positions; 
positions under the Government. 

The Chairman. What is the length of the course you give there? 

Miss Wilmot. It depends on the skill the pupils show. It is any¬ 
thing from eight months to a year. 

The Chairman. Do you give a diploma ? 

Miss Wilmot. Yes; but it is not given for length of time; it is 
given for degree of skill. 

The Chairman. That is all. 

The Chairman. Is there anyone here who wishes to go on the stand 
to testify in relation to the matters that have been brought out here ? 

Mr. Cooke. I should like to take the stand, Mr. Chairman. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF ME. LEVI COOKE. 

(The witness was affirmed by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. State your full name and address. 

Mr. Cooke. Levi Cooke. I have an office in the Union Trust 
Building, Washington, D. C. 

The Chairman. What is your business ? 

Mr. Cooke. I am an attorney at law. I am in general practice, 
but I am general counsel for the national distillers’ organization 
and wholesale liquor dealers’ organization. 

The Chairman. Do you represent any other liquor dealers? 

Mr. Cooke. I took employment from the Federation of Retail 
Liquor Dealers of the District of Columbia after the passage of the 
Jones-Works Act. My reason for taking that employment was on 
account of the form of the request which was made to me by the 
officers of that association. About the same time I counseled the 
Association of Wholesale Liquor Licensees in the District of Colum¬ 
bia under very similar circumstances. 


EXCISE BOARD OE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


365 


The Chairman. How long have you been an attorney for the 
national distillers ? 

Mr. Cooke. Since September 23, 1910. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in practice ? 

Mr. Cooke. I was admitted to the bar of the District of Columbia 
in 1906. 

The Chairman. Are you a native of the District of Columbia 1 ? 

Mr. Cooke. I was born in southern Ohio. 

The Chairman. When did you come to the District ? 

Mr. Cooke. I came to the District of Columbia in 1903. 

The Chairman. Any statement that you have to offer we shall be 
glad to receive. 

Mr. Cooke. The circumstances under which I was employed by both 
of the associations of local licensees were these: The Jones-Works 
Act—the Jones-Works section of the District of Columbia appropri¬ 
ation act was realized to make an entire change in the licensing 
system of the District of Columbia. The previous act had allowed 
an unrestricted number of licenses based upon a kind of local op¬ 
tion system, by the terms of which licenses were issued upon the 
consent of a certain number of property holders resident in the 
neighborhood of the places to be licensed. The Jones-Works Act 
in its fundamental principle was one of high license, restricted 
license, and the issuance of license by a board having discretion 
within the terms of the restrictions in the act. It was realized by 
those who were licensed under the old act and who hoped to be 
licensed under the new act that the enforcement of the law would 
depend largely upon the conduct of business by those who should 
be licensed, and great anxiety was expressed on the part both of 
the wholesale licensees and of those who were expecting to secure 
retail licenses to have the law thoroughly enforced so far as it lay 
within the power of the licensees, and they were very anxious to 
secure counsel on the terms of the law itself and to receive advice 
as to policy, and to bring their business in compliance with the act. 

I made an arrangement with the Federation of Retail Liquor 
Dealers by which I was to counsel them on matters of policy under 
the act. I was to give them what advice I could on the terms of the 
law. I was to represent no individuals in seeking licenses and was 
to have nothing to do with the matter of individual licenses. My 
work was to be confined simply to general matters under the act 
involving construction of the law and affecting the whole body of 
licensees as a class. I served the federation in that capacity and 
did the work largely on account of the interest which I have taken on 
account of the study I have given to the general subject of liquor 
regulation throughout the United States. The question of license 
and the whole liquor question I was interested in, and I was very 
anxious to do what I could both in the interests of this body and on 
account of the bearing that this situation here in this District might 
have on the development of the whole subject in the United States 
and to pay as close attention as I could to the phases in this District 
of a high-license act, an unrestricted license act, and an act which 
contemplated the closest kind of regulation of the business of the 
licensee; and that was what the Jones-Works bill, as it was finally 
incorporated in the District of Columbia appropriation act of March 
4, 1913, had in it. 


366 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


The act proposed that licenses should be restricted to 300 in num¬ 
ber; that licenses should not be granted in certain restricted zones— 

The Chairman. You mean restricted to not exceeding 300 in num¬ 
ber, do you not ? 

Mr. Cooke. That the excise board should not issue more than 300 
licenses in the District. That was the restriction in the number. 
Beyond 300 the excise board could not go. 

The Chairman. That was not a minimum figure, however? 

Mr. Cooke. The terms of the act are clear that they were to reduce 
the number of licenses in the District to not more than 300. 

The Chairman. They had the authority to reduce them to 100 if 
they so desired ? 

Mr. Cooke. Undoubtedly the excise board, acting under the terms 
of the law, could have refused to issue a single license. They could 
have exercised the discretion which would have proceeded to the dis¬ 
appearing point. 

If I may make this statement at this time, it was the apparent 
purpose of the Anti-saloon League to secure that action on the part 
of the excise board, because I understand from the records of the 
excise board that the Anti-saloon League protested against every 
license applied for—protested every license. There was not even a 
formal approval of a single one. 

I said that from my knowledge of the conduct of the Federation of 
Retail Liquor Dealers as expressed to me by their officers, the indi¬ 
vidual members of the association with whom I talked, and the 
other licensees, there was every effort and anxiety on the part of 
those who were licensed under the old law, and who held their licenses 
until November 1, 1914, and who were applying for licenses under the 
new act, to secure the best possible enforcement of the act, to observe 
its terms to the ultimate in the effort to give the law all the support 
that it could receive. 

I have very strong convictions upon the subject of the regulation 
of the distribution of liquors. I have firm convictions which I have 
reached after some years of study and consideration. I have no 
prejudices on the subject, I think, though I have been employed by 
the distillers and wholesale liquor dealers and have recently attempted 
to advise and help the licensees in this District. Undoubtedly, if 
my conviction is right that license, regulation, and control of the 
liquor traffic are infinitely preferable to attempted total prohibition, 
the best results that can be secured from that method of license, 
regulation, and control, will be secured by cooperation on the part of 
those who enforce the law and on the part of those who are licensed 
under the law, and especially on the part of the mass of the people 
for whose convenience the saloons are established, and for whose 
protection, forsooth, the regulation and the control are exerted. 

I may say that such effort was made on the part of the licensed 
dealers in the District of Columbia, anticipating licenses under the 
new act, to secure that cooperation as far as they were concerned. It 
was their full purpose to do so, so far as I know, and they have done 
their best to secure that result. 

The mass of the people have probably done their share, and, so far 
as the authorities are concerned in their functions, this investigation 
is largely directed to that subject, and I will not dicuss that until later. 
I will say this, however, that the Anti-Saloon League, as a part of the 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 367 

mass of the people, did not, so far as their conduct before the 
excise board was concerned, do their best to uphold the admin¬ 
istration of the law in a broad and sensible fashion. That is 
my judgment, and that was indicated by the invariable protests 
which were made against any licenses by the formal objection to 
almost any action of the excise board of the District of Columbia, 
which bore upon the administration of the act. It was realized that 
the reduction of the number of licenses from something over 500 to a 
maximum, in any event, of 300, would result in a number of licenses 
being refused at the closing of the license year, November 1, 1914, 
when the new act went fully into effect. 

Senator Thompson. How many licenses were issued under the old 
act, if you remember? 

Mr. Cooke. Some 520; in that neighborhood. I am not aware of 
the exact number in that last year. 

The Chairman. When you say reduced to a possible maximum of 
300 you are referring to bar-room licenses ? 

Mr. Cooke. Bar-room, hotel, and club licenses. 

The Chairman. We have, as I understand, only 100 wholesale 
licenses in addition to the 300 retail licenses. 

Mr. Cooke. The law, however, makes no provision in regard to the 
maximum number of thes3 licenses. I am referring at this time to 
the retail licenses. It was patent that when these licenses had been 
granted or rejected there would remain a stock of liquors, large or 
small, as the case might be, and it was necessary to make some dis¬ 
pensation of those liquors. It/was suggested that I make application 
to the board for some method by which those individuals who were 
refused licenses could dispose of the stocks of liquors on hand, and 
my recollection is that the Anti-Saloon League protested against any 
such disposition as that being made on the part of the board. It 
was not a vigorous protest, but it was none the less a protest. The 
action of the Anti-Saloon League in this respect might be explained 
by the fact that every member and every officer in the Anti-Saloon 
League is a prohibitionist. They are not in sympathy with the Jones- 
Works excise law. No prohibitionist is in sympathy with any law 
which licenses, regulates, or controls the distribution of liquor, and 
he can not, in principle or reason, be in favor of such a law. 

Any laws that affect the people directly and come closely in con¬ 
tact with their daily life call for a certain amount of reason in their 
administration. The letter of the law can not be enforced absolutely 
and irrefragably; for even if agreed upon generally by anyone, no 
man agrees upon the absolutely certain construction and enforce¬ 
ment of any law of general regulation. A liquor law, a license law, 
can never be made the subject of agreement between extremists; 
and it appears to me that the Anti-Saloon League in its attitude 
toward the excise law of the District of Columbia takes a position 
of extremity, the ultimate position, in the effort to secure prohibi¬ 
tion by virtue of the excise act, which certainly contemplated the 
licensing of some saloons. 

The Chairman. You say that in line with that policy the Anti¬ 
saloon League protested against all licenses ? 

Mr. Cooke. That is my understanding, that an informal protest was 
made against every license. In some cases there was no vigorous, 


368 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


determined opposition, but a formal protest similar to a general pro¬ 
test against all saloons was entered against every application for a 
license under the new act. That is a matter of record. 

I wish to say that in coming here as the representative of the Re¬ 
tail Liquor Dealers’ Federation I come on my own motion without 
consultation with that association, and I come under certain embar¬ 
rassment, for this reason. This is an investigation of the administra¬ 
tion of the excise law as conducted by the excise board. The com¬ 
mittee is authorized to investigate fully into the manner in which 
the excise law, so called, is being administered in the District of 
Columbia. The liquor dealers of the District of Columbia are not 
under investigation and are not on trial. Their interests may be in¬ 
volved. I see a headline in the Evening Star of February 27, to this 
effect: “Say board’s course is blow to liquor.” 

It may be that the result of this investigation might affect the in¬ 
terests of the retail liquor dealers and other licensed dealers of the 
District of Columbia and that they would be primarily affected. 

The body of the article which has that headline suggests that, if I 
might quote a sentence, as follows [reading]: 

It was, however, predicted to-day at the Capitol that the report, which will be 
drawn by the Prohibitionist members of the committee, who have been conducting 
the inquiry, will be unfavorable to the board, on the ground that the evidence sub¬ 
mitted, while not showing any corruption, so far as the board is concerned, has in¬ 
dicated administrative ineffectiveness in handling the excise situation. 

It is also declared by those who have closely followed the hearings that the cause 
of prohibition for the District has been greatly advanced through the investigation. 

While the activities of, the conduct of business by, the excise board, 
are being investigated here by this committee, it is not a matter of 
direct concern to the liquor dealers of the District of Columbia, and 
would not give them any necessary standing to take part in this 
investigation. 

There was, however, printed in the Washington Times of Satur¬ 
day, February 27, 1915, an editorial which, with the permission of 
the committee, I will read [reading]: 

THE EXCISE BOARD. 

The general atmosphere, quite as much as the testimony developed at the excise 
board inquiry, is bad. The Senators conducting the affair, as well as auditors from 
the outside, have been impressed all the way along that the general policy of the 
board has been to resolve all technicalities and uncertainties in favor of the saloons, 
and, beyond that, to give encouragement to the business of devising uncertainties 
in order that they might be settled in favor of the saloons. 

As much ingenuity as has been displayed on the side of the saloons, if exerted 
on the other side, by a board that wanted to drive saloons out of the town, would pretty 
nearly have accomplished that result. It would have been just as unfair to the law, 
just as misrepresentative of the law’s intent, as has been the board’s attitude of per¬ 
sistent favoritism toward the saloons. 

The law was not made for the purpose of driving the saloons out of the town; and 
no more was it made in the expectation that it would be stretched at every point to 
cover the needs of the saloons. It was not made to be a disguised prohibition meas¬ 
ure; neither was it intended to produce here the conditions of a wide-open city. It 
was intended to be administered equitably, fairly, and with simple common sense 
in mind. 

People who do not want this town to go dry will do well to give their attention to 
what is happening in this Senate inquiry. This is no time to cover up; it is the time 
to let the whole truth become known. The liquor interests can not afford to cast in 
its lot with a discredited excise board, and try to protect such a body. To do so will 
strengthen the argument of prohibitionists that the liquor business is by instinct an 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 369 

outlaw and that regulation of it ine itably leads to this sort of performances. The 
liquor business has need to com ince the community that it can be legitimate, decent, 
and lawal iding; and the best friend of the local saloon men will be that one who will 
com. ince them that a too friendly and acquiescent excise authority is going in the end 
to hurt them most. 

The powers of the Senate investigators are rather vague. They can report what they 
find, and they can be confidently expected to.report in terms whose condemnation 
of recent conditions will wear no veil. But the excise board is appointed by the 
President and confirmed by the President. It is directly responsible only to the 
President, as the administrator of the laws. He can demand resignations, and if he 
doesn’t get them can remove offending appointees. 

If the committee please, that editorial following immediately upon 
the testimony taken on Friday afternoon last to the effect that the 
excise board had been dominated by the “ liquor interest,” whatever 
that may be, to my mind justified an expression from me, not by 
direct authority of the retail licensees whom I represent but on my 
own authority, as to my understanding of this act, and as to the atti¬ 
tude of the liquor dealers under the act, and without reference to 
whatever effect it might have upon the presentation of the case that 
had been made against the excise board or might he made by the 
excise board in its own behalf. 

There was a statement also in the Washington Times of Saturday 
to the effect that the report of this investigating committee would be a 
scathing denunciation of the methods of the excise board. 

The three things occurring in conjunction, the suggestion on 
Friday of domination of the board by the liquor interests, the sug¬ 
gestion in the editorial that the board had been discredited and that 
whatever liquor interest there was in the District of Columbia should 
not undertake in any way to express itself so that it might be con¬ 
sidered as an expression in any way supporting the position of a dis¬ 
credited excise board, and the expressions to the effect that the com¬ 
mittee had already ascertained enough to justify very drastic action, 
impelled me, as a matter of my own sense of duty in the premises, to 
appear before the committee. 

It seems to me that the investigation which has been made has 
covered a very wide latitude; that it has not disclosed conduct in 
violation of the excise law by members of the board. My first state¬ 
ment regarding the attitude of the board toward this law is very 
largely supported by the investigation which the committee has so 
far made. The law has been complied with by the retail licensees 
and by the wholesale licensees. It will continue to be complied with 
by them, so long as they collectively and individually conform to 
their present policy with respect to the law. 

There have been three classes of witnesses examined, in a general 
way, by this committee. There have been the two officers of the 
Anti-Saloon League, the president and the attorney, who have made 
their statements; there have been certain witnesses, I am told, who 
made applications for licenses and did not receive them, and who 
have made their statements; and there have been certain general 
witnesses who volunteered their statements in criticism of the excise 
board because their views, both on fact and law, had not been com¬ 
plied with by the board in its final action. 

The whole investigation before the committee has to a large extent 
come down to two things, the construction of the law by the excise 
board, and the action of the excise board in specific cases of its inter- 


370 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


pretation of the law in matters of discretion in licensing individual 
places. I do not know whether they are many or few. I have seen 
the report of only one day of the committee’s investigation for close 
examination, and have heard only Friday’s hearing and to-day’s 
hearing thus far, and it seems to me that no sound investigation can 
be made by this committee of the conduct of the excise board and 
indirectly of the business which has been conducted under this act, 
unless the committee has a full and complete statement regarding the 
act. If they are to be criticized on their tenure of license, if the entire 
trade, as suggested in the Star of Saturday evening, is by virtue of 
this investigation to be jeopardized as an institution on questions of 
law and construction of the act of Congress, then this committee 
should, in justice to its own inquiry, have before it a full presentation 
of this law, before it determines that the excise board which was 
charged with the enforcement of the act has violated a single pro¬ 
vision of the act in granting a single license or in doing certain other 
things within its jurisdiction. 

The act of Congress which is in issue was a section of a prohibition 
act. The section, one of many paragraphs, involves a complete 
transition in the licensing system of the District of Columbia. The 
construction of this act hinges in many respects upon the pre¬ 
ceding history of the legislation of the District of Columbia, and it is 
not a matter which an individual lawyer, by close application, can 
fully familiarize himself with, short of very careful study. 

The question of extent of discretion in the excise board is a matter 
of law; and then the question of the meaning of that discretion be¬ 
comes again a question of law, after it is admitted to exist in the 
excise board. 

I do not myself wish to undertake to present to this committee the 
discussion of the law which I assure the committee is an essential 
element in the record of these hearings before the committee proceeds 
to any final judgment as a result of its inquiry into the conduct of 
business by the excise board. 

Mr. Alexander H. Bell, of the District of Columbia bar, formerly 
president of the District of Columbia Bar Association, has made the 
most thorough study of this act that has been made by any indi¬ 
vidual, so far as I know. He is familiar not only with this act, but 
with preceding acts in the District of Columbia, and in a study of 
this act he has considered especially its relationship to the system of 
law preceding it. 

Realizing the possible uncertainties of my position in discussing the 
general subject in this inquiry with the committee, in view of the fact 
that I held no brief whatever from the excise board and wished to hold 
no brief whatever from the excise board, but did wish that full and 
complete justice should be done under any circumstances and in any 
event by this committee, I requested Mr. Bell, on account of his com¬ 
plete knowledge of the subject matter, in accommodation to me and 
upon my request alone, to make a statement to the committee regard¬ 
ing the various points in the act concerning which dispute has arisen 
before the committee, and on account of the attitude of the board 
upon which there might be a confusion in the minds of the committee 
&s to the conclusion which it should reach regarding the subjects of 
its investigation. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 371 

I ask that the committee hear Mr. Bell on my request, and that he 
discuss before the committee the disputed points of the act. 

Senator Dillingham. Whom does Mr. Bell represent professionally? 

Mr. Cooke. He is in general practice. He represents the National 
Capital Brewing Co. He represented some 40 applicants before the 
excise board, and he is familiar with its processes in the considera¬ 
tion of applications for licenses, and he represents a number of pri¬ 
vate clients not remotely interested in this general subject. If it 
please the committee, Mr. Bell has prepared an exhaustive treatise 
on the subject of this act as a matter of academic investigation. 

Senator Thompson. I presume he represents the liquor view of the 
proposition ? 

Mr. Cooke. As I said, he is quite an authority on the subject of 
this law. 

Senator Thompson. Do you think there could be any possible dif¬ 
ference of construction of the law where it says in so many words that a 
saloon shall not operate within 400 feet of a certain building? That 
is not subject to difference of construction by anybody. 

Mr. Cooke. It has been subject to construction in this District on 
that very point. While I do not pretend to be a specialist on this 
act here in the District of Columbia, as I understand, the- method 
of measuring a distance of 400 feet from a schoolhouse to a licensed 
barroom is the same under this act as it was under the preceding 
act which was in force for many years, and the method of measure¬ 
ment under the preceding act was followed under this act, the lan¬ 
guage of which act is the same- 

Senator Dillingham. Let me ask this question about that: Has the 
method of measurement ever been determined in any court? 

Mr. Cooke. There has been a decision. Mr. Bell can discuss that at 
length. These provisions of this act which might be apparently open 
and shut are like so many other provisions of law which, when con¬ 
sidered in due course and in careful fashion by tribunals- 

Senator Dillingham. I understand your argument. Let me ask 
you another question. Has it ever been determined what, according 
to the language of this act, constitutes an entrance of a schoolhouse? 

Mr. Cooke. I do not know. On that very point- 

Senator Thompson. Was it not determined here, under the old 
law, that the shortest course of travel must be used—the shortest 
way that a person would naturally go from one point to another ? 

Mr. Cook. I understand that there has been a decision on that 
subject, and I understand that Mr. Bell will discuss that in the course 
of his argument. 

Senator Thompson. You would not contend, if a saloon was located 
within less than 300 feet of a church or schoolhouse, that there could 
be any dispute as to whether it should operate ? 

Mr. Cooke. I simply contend this: That in a case involving that 
question the law should be enforced as it was written, that the 
language should be construed according to the canons of construc¬ 
tion, and that a school-teacher might say 400 feet is 400 feet, but it 
might not be a measurement which the courts and the departments 
would find on construction proper under the act. There has been 
a construction of the very language which is in issue on that point 

84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63~3-25 



372 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

in the District of Columbia. Mr. Bell will discuss that in the light 
of his study, both of this law- 

Senator Dillingham. That is a matter to be determined by the 
full committee. The chairman and Senator Jones are both absent 
now. That is the way I feel about it. 

Mr. Cooke. I have here a case which I have used in another matter, 
entirely different from this. This is a memorandum from a previous 
case. In the case of United States v. Ceredo Hermanos Y Compania 
(209 U. S., 337) [reading]: 

“ The Supreme Court having under consideration a pro\ ision of the tariff act of July 
24, 1897, similar in language to that contained in the act of 1875, repeatedly construed 
by the Treasury Department, decided as follows: 

“ ‘We have said that, when the meaning of a statute is doubtful, great weight should 
be given to the construction placed upon it by the deparment charged with its execu¬ 
tion (Robertson v. Downy, 127 U. S., 607; United States v. Heeley, 160 U. S., 
136); and we have decided that the reenactment, by Congress, without change of a 
statute which had previously received long-continued executive construction, is an 
adoption by Congress of such construction. (United States v. G. Falk & Brother, 
204 U. S., 143.’ ” 

Senator Dillingham. No lawyer will deny that. There is no 
question about that. 

Mr. Cooke. But there is the point which I understand Mr. Bell in 
his discussion of the law of this case will fully establish, that there 
has been a construction under the old act of this method of measure¬ 
ment laid down in the old act. 

Senator Dillingham. Have you any conception that this committee 
is going to determine in each of these cases whether this law has in 
effect been violated in the spirit in which the law has been applied 
by this board of excise commissioners ? 

Mr. Cooke. As I understand the record, Senator, the matter came 
down very largely to the constructions which had been placed upon 
the law as a matter of law by the excise board. 

Senator Dillingham. I have not discovered from my association 
with the committee that they were going to attempt to determine 
in each of these cases whether or not the law had been technically 
violated; but the inquiry was directed more particularly to the 
question of the policy that has been adopted by the board of 
commissioners, taking all the cases together; that is to say, whether 
in the doubtful cases they have stretched the law for the pur¬ 
pose of putting in a saloon, for instance in an educational district, 
or whether they have tried to protect the schools by exercising a 
wise discretion and keeping the saloons out of that district; and that 
is what the committee have been seeking more than they have to 
obtain in each particular case the fact a$ to whether there has been 
a technical violation of the law. 

Mr. Cooke. There are disputes on these questions of law, undoubt¬ 
edly. In regard to the measurement of distances there has been 
an idea in mind that the board may not have properly measured 
given distances. If the committee is to discard, as the chairman 
said this morning, all expressions of opinions, mere conclusions or 
hearsay evidence, or whatever else they may be, and is to dismiss 
from its consideration questions of law charged upon this board, 
later charged upon the court, possibly, and is to confine itself to the 
question of how the board has administered the spirit of the act, 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


373 


there might be a question of law left there on the actual discretion 
vested in this excise board; and if you did, the committee has got to 
try the conscience of the board, I would say; and I say this now, and 
as a matter of suggestion to the committee alone, that it is impossible 
for one man to try another man’s conscience, when he has not been 
charged with the duty that the man performed, when he has not been 
over the same record that that man has been over, when he has not 
made the same study of the hundreds or thousands of things in con¬ 
nection with the subject that that man has made. You would be 
doing what I have never heard of before—that matter of trial of 
conscience; after a man has taken his oath of office, has done noth¬ 
ing for which he could be impeached, has done nothing on account 
of which any specific charge can be brought against him. That is my 
personal opinion, Senator. 

Senator Dillingham. Do I correctly understand you to say that 
the duty of this committee is to take each one of these cases and try 
it specifically and attempt to determine'whether there has been a 
violation of the law alone? 

Mr. Cooke. No, no. If I were asked about that, I would say some¬ 
thing else. I said that the disputes that I had heard had been 
largely disputes on constructions of the act. 

Senator Dillingham. But that being so, you think the duty of the 
committee is to make inquiry whether there have been violations of 
the act from the construction that the board have placed upon it ? 

Mr. Cooke. If the excise board, for instance, misconstrued the law 
so as to place a licensed barroom in a prohibited zone in the District 
of Columbia, that would be a violation of the law, and that saloon 
would be in violation of the law, even though it operated under color 
of license, and there could be a prosecution on the motion of any citizen 
of the District of Columbia on the ground of a violation of this act. 
I do not know whether the committee is considering that or not. 
I have heard so much dispute, however, on the construction of this law, 
which is a complex one, that I made the suggestion that before reaching 
judgment on that kind of a question, if the committee proceeded to 
that kind of a judgment, a full discussion of certain disputed law 
points under this act should be presented. 

Mr. Lambert was called this morning to discuss the record of a ca,se 
now pending in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. 
He mentioned Mr. Bell as having been an attorney of record in that 
case. He mentioned me as having been present in the matter as 
amicus curiae, and we argued in that case a very important question 
of substantive law under this act, and we argued what to my mind 
was a question of procedure infinitely more important to the enforce¬ 
ment of the law. And since the committee toox the statement of Mr. 
Wilton J. Lambert on the subject of the issues presented in that case, 
it seems to me that if the testimony of the witness Lambert was 
worthy of any consideration whatever, the committee, in justice to 
the fullness of its inquiry, should hear a discussion from the other side 
on the issues of law presented in that case. That case was tried for 
days and days in the equity court. 

Senator Dillingham. On referring to the resolution I find that 
the scope of the investigation is this, “to investigate fully into the 
manner in which the excise law, so called, is being administered in 
the District of Columbia.” 


374 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Cooke. That is the scope of the investigation. 

Senator Dillingham. The committee is confined to that resolution. 

Mr. Cooke. I have that before me—not that I would make any 
statement- 

Senator Thompson. It was simply an oral resolution offered for an 
investigation. 

Mr. Cooke. My recollection is that Senator Jones made a speech on 
the floor of the Senate and made certain very grave charges against 
the excise board, and that that was to be investigated. 

Senator Thompson. Senator Martine made the motion for the in¬ 
vestigation, after the speech of Senator Jones. 

Mr. Cooke. The door was open for an investigation of anything that 
Senator Jones charged. That was my impression. 

Senator Thompson. And then this resolution was formally drafted, 
so as to have some record to go by. 

Senator Dillingham. That is as far as I will consent to go. I 
would like the greatest amount of information given, whatever sources 
it may come from, but I do not know what the mind of the committee 
would be. There are only two of us to answer at this time, and I would 
not take the responsibility, so far as I am concerned, of opening this 
question up for discussion by men who are employed as counsel repre¬ 
senting interests that are not under investigation here. 

Mr. Cooke. If the Senator please, I tried to make it clear- 

Senator Dillingham. I am not at all sure that I would not be 
willing to hfcar it if the committee wants to hear it, but sitting here 
alone I would not take the responsibility for the committee. 

Mr. Cooke. I have tried, with some difficulty, to make my position 
entirely clear before the committee. 

Senator Dillingham. I think we understand it. 

Mr. Cooke. I am not here for the excise board. I am not here, 
necessarily, for the members of the Retail Liquor Dealers’ Federa¬ 
tion. I felt it to be my duty to come here and make certain state¬ 
ments, however, and I have made them. 

Senator Thompson. As I remember, you made the broad statement 
in your testimony that according to your view, at least, the liquor 
dealers were not violating the law in any way. 

Mr. Cooke. I made the broad statement that the dealers licensed 
under this act were doing their utmost, so far as my information 
extended, to uphold every provision of this law in letter as well as 
spirit and in spirit as well as letter. 

Senator Thompson. Have you ever examined or had examined 
these barrooms on Sundays ? 

Mr. Cooke. I have never done so. 

Senator Thompson. Do you know anything about obstruction of the 
view from the street of the interior of barrooms by screens and stained 
windows in those places, which is expressly prohibited hi the law ? 

Mr. Cooke. I have made no investigation. 

Senator Thompson. It is not a subject of interpretation where it 
is shown that there are screens or painted windows. There are not 
any two ways to construe that. 

Mr. Cooke. My recollection is that the bar is to be open to view 
during certain hours. 

Senator Thompson. The language of the law is “ that the interior of 
every barroom shall at all times when selling is prohibited be 




EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 375 

exposed to full view from the street, without obstruction by screens, 
blinds, curtains, stained glass, bottles, boxes, signs, or other material, 
except in the case of clubs .’’ That, of course, is very clear. 

Mr. Cooke. Yes. 

Senator Thompson. There would not be any disagreement between 
us on that proposition? A dispute could not exist by any inter¬ 
pretation ? 

Mr. Cooke. No; I do not think so. 1 do not want you to get the 
impression that my position is not as far out in front on the enforce¬ 
ment of this law as yours or anyone else’s, as far as the restrictions 
and regulations are concerned. 

Senator Thompson. You have taken, really, the other side of it, 
the defense of the licensees ? 

Mr. Cooke. How is that? 

Senator Thompson. You have taken the defense in these matters. 
You are defending them in what you believe to be their rights in the 
premises. 

Mr. Cooke. My attitude on that, Senator, is this, that the question 
of liquor regulation goes far beyond the interest of retail liquor dealers, 
and far beyond the interest of any individual, and far Beyond the 
interest, even, of the Antisaloon League, but to the best interests of 
the entire public on all aspects. The retail liquor dealer is a mere 
incident in the solving of the question. 

Senator Thompson. I suppose you have, in your relations with 
your clients the liquor dealers and licensees, and in your practice 
Before the excise board, become fairly familiar with the rules and 
regulations promulgated by the board ? 

Mr. Cooke. I understand the regulations of the excise board. I 
can not answer specific questions on specific points without examining 
them again. 

Senator Thompson. Do you agree with the board on their ideas of 
the formulation of these rules from the law, where they have interpo¬ 
lated certain things in the rules which are not contained in the law ? 
Do you agree with the board on that ? 

Mr. Cooke. My suggestion to the committee is that they hear Mr. 
Bell upon the technical aspects of the law. That comes down, now, 
to a question of construction of the law and the enforcement of the 
law, as a matter of law. The excise board were authorized and 
directed to make rules and regulations. The Senator is probably 
familiar with the long line of cases in the Supreme Court as to the 
extent of the power to make regulations, once the authority to make 
them is vested in an executive officer. 

Senator Thompson. But you will agree with me that they could 
not make a regulation contrary to the organic law—the primary act ? 

Mr. Cooke. There is a line of cases in the Supreme Court to the 
effect that a regulating authority can neither add to, take from, nor 
amend an act under which regulations are issued, but they can only 
make regulations in supplement of the law and to effectuate its 
purpose. 

Senator Thompson. But if they have added to or taken from, 
that is an act beyond their authority, is it not ? 

Mr. Cooke. Then they have exceeded their authority, and the 
regulation falls. 


376 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Senator Thompson. For instance, take the language in section 2 
of the rules made by the board [reading] 

No license shall be issued to a hotel as such having less than 50 bedrooms for guests. 

The words “ as such” are put in that rule by the board. They are 
not contained in the law. 

Mr. Cooke. That would be a matter for discussion. That is a 
specific point that I should not wish to discuss. I come here not to 
make a detailed discussion of this act. There are some features of 
it upon which I could argue at great length. 

Senator Thompson. But you do agree with the board in these 
rules, as far as your knowledge of it is concerned ? 

Mr. Cooke. I am offering and volunteering a witness here who is the 
highest authority on this Taw from an academic standpoint that we 
have here in the District. He can answer any question, I think, that 
the ingenuity of the committee would suggest. 

Senator Thompson. But I understood from your statement that the 
liquor dealers were not acting outside of the law, and from your obser¬ 
vation of the board they had not- 

Mr. Cooke. My statement, Senator Thompson, was that the licensed 
dealers of the District of Columbia had made every effort to comply 
with the act and see to its full enforcement in letter and spirit, and 
that was the confederated purpose on their part in the interest of the 
law itself 

Senator Thompson. You do not care to discuss these rules in con¬ 
nection with the law, then ? 

Mr. Cooke. I will discuss any question with the committee to give 
the committee the benefit of my opinion, but I would much prefer that 
the committee hear Mr. Bell, who can discuss the law in the greatest 
detail with the greatest certainty, and fully justify his impressions by 
authority and by argument. 

Senator Thompson. Anyhow, we agree on one thing, that the board 
has no right to go beyond the express letter of the law in formulating 
its rulings—that is, by adding to the law or subtracting from the law ? 

Mr. Cooke. We agree, as lawyers, that the rule regarding regulations 
which is fixed by the Supreme Court Reports applies to the regulations 
which this board would issue. That is, that being authorized by the 
act to make regulations they could not make regulations which 
would add to, take from, or alter the law, but that they could make 
regulations which would supplement and effectuate the law, and that 
if they went beyond, their regulation would fall of its own weight and 
have no validity. That is a matter of case law. 

Senator Thompson. That would be a proper finding of the com¬ 
mittee, in your judgment, then, taking the whole case, if they found 
it to be true that the board had gone outside of the law ? 

Mr. Cooke. The committee, if it so found, could say that in its 

a ment, whether it had jurisdiction of the question or not, a par- 
ar regulation altered or took from the Jones-Works Act, and 
that therefore such regulation fell within the inhibition of the cases 
which destroys the validity of the regulation of the regulating author¬ 
ity. That is substantive law, fundamental law. They can not make 
a regulation that alters or amends this act. 

Senator Thompson. You are familiar with those rules and regu¬ 
lations, are you not ? 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 377 

Mr. Cooke. If you will direct my attention to a particular regu¬ 
lation, I will be very glad to discuss it. 

Senator Thompson. I am speaking of the regulations as a whole. 

Mr. Cooke. I have not been over those regulations for some months. 
Those regulations, when I first examined them, contained nothing 
which, without particular attention having been drawn to them, 
appealed to me as being beyond the regulating authority of the 
board. However, I had no special case. I have represented not a 
single individual licensee before this board. I have never under¬ 
taken to discuss specific questions with this board, and on the few 
occasions when I have appeared before them it has been on the basis 
of the entire act. 

Senator Thompson. Then, as I understand, your opinion as 
attorney for the liquor interests—for the licensees—is the same as 
the excise board’s, that they have not gone outside of the law in 
those rules and regulations ? 

Mr. Cooke. If the Senator please, I have not agreed or disagreed 
as to the validity of a single regulation. I have agreed with you as 
to what the law is regarding the validity of regulation. I have had 
no case specifically brought to my mind which I considered a regu¬ 
lation of the excise board that appeared to be invalid as a regulation. 
It is perfectly clear that if they made a regulation which amended 
the law, added to it or took from it, that regulation was never a 
regulation. It was invalid. 

Senator Thompson. And in your investigation you have never dis¬ 
covered anything of that kind? 

Mr. Cooke. I have never had my attention drawn to a particular 
provision of the regulations of the excise board which on such an 
investigation appealed to me as being beyond their authority. There 
might be such. I have seen regulations of nearly every executive 
authority under the United States Government held invalid. I have 
seen regulations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue held 
invalid for want of authority, and regulations of the Secretary of 
the Navy held invalid, and regulations of the Secretary of the 
Treasury held invalid. That is the great case of Eaton against Jones. 
Every regulating authority that I ever ran across has made mistakes, 
and possibly the excise board has made them. 

I had a request, Mr. Chairman, regarding the discussion of the 
disputed points under the law- 

The Chairman. We will take that under consideration. The 
matter of hearing Mr. Bell will be submitted to the committee. 

Mr. Cooke. If the committee please, I have refrained from discuss¬ 
ing a matter which was discussed at some length by Mr. Wilton J. 
Lambert this morning. I was in that case in the equity court as 
amicus curiae, and discussed the two questions of law, only they were 
to my notion the most important points in the whole case from a 
general standpoint, under this law. Unless Mr. Bell is to make a 
statement, he having been in the case as an attorney of record, I 
would wish to have an opportunity to make a statement to the board 
on that one point; because, otherwise, Mr. Lambert’s statement 
would be the only statement of record in this transcript. 

The Chairman. We will keep that in mind. 

(The witness was there upon excused.) 


378 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


TESTIMONY OF MR. FREDERICK I. FISHBACK. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your position or business ? 

Mr. Fisiiback. I am a lawyer, in the Union Trust Building, Wash¬ 
ington. I simply came here to call your attention to a few things. 

On October 24 last I wrote a letter to Gen. Smith, as chairman of 
the excise board, calling attention to the fact that the place of 
business of Fred H. Geyer, at 1825 Fourteenth Street NW., where he 
conducts a summer garden, and at 1827 Fourteenth street NW., where 
he conducts a barroom, is in effect and in fact two places of business. 

I also in that letter called attention to the fact that the place of 
business of O’Hanlon & O’Connor, at 1942 and 1944 Fourteenth 
Street NW., two premises, was in fact two places of business. 

The excise law clearly states that a barroom license shall be required 
for every hotel, barroom, club, or other place in which intoxicating 
liquors are sold or dispensed at retail; every hotel, tavern, barroom, 
club, or other place in which intoxicating liquors are sold. 

In writing this letter I wished the board to understand that my 
Construction of the law was and is that Geyer had a barroom at 1827 
Fourteenth Street and a different place of business and another 
place of business at 1825 Fourteenth Street, and that he was con¬ 
ducting those two places under one license. 

I also wished to make the point clear that O Hanlon and O’Connor 
were conducting two barrooms at different places under one license. 

My letter on this subject was apparently in some waj^ called to the 
attention of Mr. O’Hanlon. I have never had any acknowledgment 
of it from the excise board, but Mr. O Hanlon came to see me with 
his attorney, and his attorney asked me if I had any objection to Mr. 
O Hanlon. I said none, as a man; that I never saw him before in my 
life; and no objection to liquor dealers in general; to which Mr. 
O Hanlon said that he had never drank a drop in his life, and he said 
that if he got his license this time he would never ask for it again, 
and informed me also that he was then asking for this new license 
in only one place, which has turned out to be a license granted 
apparently for 1942 Fourteenth Street, where formerly there were two 
entrances. There is now one. There was formerly an entrance at 
1942, and another entrance at 1944. The license seems to have been 
granted for 1942, and if one enters that door at 1942 he may buy 
liquor at the barroom on those premises, or he may go around 
through the double doors into a barroom at 1944—two places of 
business. 

My contention is that if the excise board could grant him a license 
to conduct two saloons or barrooms on two different premises, there 
is absolutely nothing to curtail their power, and if O’Hanlon and 
O’Connor could buy or could rent all of the property that is on Four¬ 
teenth Street from T to U Streets, they could sell liquor over the 
whole block for one license; that as a matter of fact O’Hanlon and 
O’Connor in conducting this business at 1942 and 1944 Fourteenth 
Street are running two barrooms; that there are two barrooms in 
the same block and that the law is violated in having four saloons 
instead of- 

The Chairman. Which side of the block do you refer to ? 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


379 


Mr. Fishback. The west side of Fourteenth Street, between T 
and U. O’Hanlon and O’Connor’s saloon is at the street railway 
transfer point at Fourteenth and U. 

The letter I have referred to, of October 24, 1914, is as follows 
[readingl: 

Washington, D. C., October 24, 1914- 

Gen. Robert G. Smith, 

Chairman Excise Board , District of Columbia , 

Municipal Building , Washington , D. C. 

Dear Sir: I respectfully call your attention to the fact that O’Hanlon and O’Connor 
conduct two barrooms at 1942 and 1944 Fourteenth Street NW., and that Fred H. Geyer 
also dispenses liquors in a summer garden at. 1825 Fourteenth Street NW., and in a bar¬ 
room at 1827 Fourteenth Street NW. 1 understand that O’Hanlon and O’Connor have 

only one license for their two barrooms and that Fred H. Geyer has only one license 
to cover his summer garden at 1825 Fourteenth Street and his barroom at 1827 Four¬ 
teenth Street NW. 


The excise law,’approved March 4, 1913, specifically provides that: 

“A barroom license shall be required for every hotel, tavern, barroom, club, or other 
place in which intoxicating liquors are sold or dispensed at retail.” 

I respectfully represent that the business in the name of O’Hanlon and O’Connor, at 
1942 and 1944 Fourteenth Street NW., is conducted in two barrooms and that the terms 
of the law require that if the business is maintained at both of those places that two 
licenses shall be secured. As O’Hanlon and O’Connor have two barrooms on the west 
side of Fourteenth Street between T and U Streets NW., and there are two others on 
the same side of said block, there is one more barroom on that side of the block than 
the existing excise law authorizes. 

This whole section in the v icinity of Fourteenth and U Streets NW. is a disgrace 
on account of the great number of liquor dives in it. There seems to have been a 
desire on the part of the liquor dealers of Washington to place in the neighborhood of 
this important transfer point, where great throngs change cars at all hours of the day, 
just as many barrooms as possible. 

I also insist that if Fred H. Geyer is permitted to maintain a barroom at 1827 Four¬ 
teenth Street, NW., and a summer garden or “other place in which intoxicating 
liquors are sold or dispensed at retail” at 1825 Fourteenth Street, NW., the excise 
law approved March 4, 1913, requires that he shall obtain a license for his barroom 
and a separate license for his “other place in which intoxicating liquors are sold or 
dispensed at retail.” 

To do otherwise than is suggested herein would give to Messrs. O’Hanlon & O’Con¬ 
nor and to Mr. Fred H. Geyer and to other retail liquor dealers operating under similar 
conditions the right to extend their sales over an entire square under one license if 
they could rent or purchase the property. 

Very respectfully, 

Frederick L. Fishback, 

1330 Belmont Street , NW. 


On October 30, the day before the licenses were issued, Mr. Frank 
C. Daniel, principal of the McKinley Manual Training School, and I 
called in the morning at the office of the excise board to speak about 
a place conducted by Karl Xander, on the west side of Seventh Street 
between P and Q, and also to speak about another place, Murray’s, 
on Seventh Street, on the east side between P and Q. 

Some one sent in our names, and the message came out to ask if 
the gentlemen wished to see them on excise business, and on being 
told that that was the case, we were informed that they could not 
see us, and thereupon we wrote this letter which Mr. Daniel and I left 
with the board [reading]: 

Washington, D. C., October 30, 1914- 

Gen. Robert G. Smith, 

Chairman Excise Board , District of Columbia , 

Municipal Building , Washington , D. C. 

Dear Sir: We regret that you and the members of the excise board were unable 
to see us when we called at your office at 11 o’clock this morning. We wish to call 
your attention to the fact that the entrance to the bar room of Karl Xander is less than 
400 feet, as determined by actual measurement, from the south entrance of the McKin- 


380 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


ley Manual Training School, and to insist in view of this fact that no license should 
be issued to him for the coming year. 

We wish also to call attention to the fact that application for transfer of license for 
Murray’s caf6 at 1521 Seventh Street to 1523 Seventh Street NW. has been made. 
The premises known as 1521 Seventh Street are within 400 feet of the Polk School, but 
the premises known as 1523 Seventh Street are less than 400 feet from the McKinley 
Manual Training School. 

Very respectfully, 

Frank C. Daniel, 

Principal McKinley Manual Training School. 


Frederick L. Fishback, 
President Central High School Alumni Association. 


I have brought here with me a plat made this morning by the 
principal of the McKinley Manual Training School and one of his 
teachers, showing the actual distance. At this morning’s session 
the question was raised as to the distance between the Polk School 
and the McKinley Manual Training School. The actual distance 
is 838.5 feet. Just across P Street is the Thyson House, as it was 
many years ago, and now known as the Hotel Thyson. It is no more 
a hotel than this room is. The excise board has granted a license 
for the barroom and the business is being conducted there to-day. 
It is not more than 150 feet from the Polk School. 

The Chairman. Why do you say it is not a hotel, Mr. Fishback ? 

Mr. Fishback. It is not patronized as a hotel. That is certainly 
the case. I have been by there Saturday night, twice, once at 9 
o’clock and once at 9.40 or 9.45. There is a dim light in the entrance 
way and one light on the fourth floor of the building. 

The Chairman. No other lights in that big building? 

Mr. Fishback. No other lights whatever. On two other occasions 
within a month I have seen that same situation—that dim light in 
the hall and one light either on the third or the fourth floor. 

The Chairman. Have you had occasion to view that hotel often ? 

Mr. Fishback. Oh, yes. 

The Chairman. That is called a hotel ? 

Mr. Fishback. Yes, sir; and, Senator, I am glad you asked me 
that. Many years ago—I have lived in Washington since I was a 
small boy, and lived within one block of that hotel—it was a hotel; 
what was known as the Drovers’ Rest, 35 years ago. Farmers came in 
from distant points in Maryland to sell hay and produce. They came 
in there late in the evening, and at that time there was a large yard, 
and there were stalls for the keeping of horses, and it was used as a 
hotel so long ago as that. 

The Chairman. Do you know how long it has been there purport¬ 
ing to be a hotel ? 

Mr. Fishback. As I stated a few minutes ago, it was known in my 
boyhood as the Thyson House. 

The Chairman. Have you ever looked over the register ? 

Mr. Fishback. I have not. 

The Chairman. Have you ever been in the office of the hotel ? 

Mr. Fishback. Many years ago there was an office room where the 
barber shop now is. 

The Chairman. Do you know who is supposed to conduct the 
hotel and what rent he pays ? 

Mr. Fishback. I do not. I should like very much to have the 
committee examine the register of that hotel, if there be one. 

The Chairman. Go ahead, Mr. Fishback. 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 381 

Mr. Fishback. Then farther up the block, on the same side of the 
street, is the Murray barroom, which I referred to in my letter, and 
which is 402.6 feet from the entrance to the Polk School. From that 
same place to the McKinley Manual Training School, south door, is 
435.9 feet, making the total distance between the two schoolhouses 
of 838.5; and yet there are two barrooms on that side of the street, 
and immediately opposite Murray’s on the other side of Seventh 
Street are two others, one of William J. Donovan, at 1528 Seventh 
Street, and Xander’s, at 1530, and also occupying premises of 1532. 

The Chairman. In measuring distances from the McKinley Manual 
Training School did you measure from the rear or front entrance ? 

Mr. Fishback. The rear entrance. I did not make these measure¬ 
ments. They were made by Mr. Daniel and Mr. Myers. In other 
words, within approximately 400 feet, or a little over 400 feet, we 
will say, of these schools are four saloons; and my contention simply 
is this, that the excise board in its authority to exercise discretion 
has in every case conceivably exercised it against the community, 
against the school children of this town, and I think it is a shame. 

Let us go back in our history. Let us go back to the Soldiers’ 
Home. I had not intended to speak of that, but it occurs to me 
because of these old occasions that have come up. Prior to about 
1891 liquor was sold on Seventh Street extended. At that time, for 
the benefit of a thousand soldiers, old men at the Soldiers’ Home, the 
sale of liquor within a mile of the Soldiers’ Home was prohibited. 
Now, that mile limit comes across R Street just north of the McKin¬ 
ley Manual Training School, and so when the law went into effect 
there was an effort to put as many saloons as possible just across the 
line. The excise board has, in permitting these barrooms to con¬ 
tinue, shown that it is perfectly willing to have a condition exist 
around the schoolhouses which the law will not permit to exist, for 
the protection of old soldiers, and it subjects children to the worst 
influences that exist in the town. 

I simply came here to call attention to the fact that while the law 
does permit 300 barroom licenses to be issued, it does not require 
that 300 be issued, and that if discretion had been exercised in favor 
of the community instead of against it, if the benefit of the doubt had 
not on every occasion been given to the saloon keeper, these barrooms 
immediately adjoining these schools would not exist. 

I want also to call your attention once more to the fact that it 
seems to me it is a real violation of the law to have these two places 
of business conducted as they are under one license. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

The Chairman. I will state to the members of the excise board that 
this is all the testimony we will take this afternoon. I do not know 
what further testimony we will take. Gen. Smith said that he might 
have something to say before we concluded. If any member of the 
board wishes to take the stand, we will be glad to have him do so. 
The commissioners state that they will put their statements in writing. 

Mr. Smith. I will say that mine has been made on the stand. The 
other two will be put in writing. 

The Chairman. Yes; certainly. Mr. Baker and Mr. Bride state 
that their further testimony will be put in writing and be presented 
to the committee. 


382 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


Mr. Smith. That is owing to the fact that they have not seen or 
heard the sworn evidence and have not seen it printed, and it is the 
desire to first see the evidence before answering. That is what is 
prompting them to withhold their testimony until to-morrow morning. 

The Chairman. That will be satisfactory. 

(The statements of Mr. Bride and Mr. Baker were subsequently 
submitted to the chairman and are here printed in full, as follows:) 

STATEMENT OF MR. BRIDE. 


Excise Board for the District of Columbia, 

Washington , March 2 , 1915. 

The honorable the Special Committee of the United States Senate on Investigation of the 

Conduct of the Excise Board of the District of Columbia. 

Sirs: As stated by your chairman (p. 380 of the hearings), that Mr. Baker and Mr. 
Bride would put in writing any further testimony which they desired to give, the 
undersigned, one of the members of the excise board, desires to submit the following 
statement, under oath: 

About the time that Mr. Andrew Wilson moved his offices to the Woodward Building* 
from the Evans Building, the exact date of which I do not now recall, my son, W. W. 
Bride, who had an office in the Woodward Building also, called me on the telephone 
and asked me if I would not come to see Mr. Wilson at his office, which I did. The 
first thing he asked me was as to the license which had been granted to Mr. P. J. 
McDonald on Pennsylvania Avenue SE. Mr. Wilson asked me what the building in 
which Mr. McDonald’s saloon was located was worth, and I told him about $5,500. I 
further stated that the bar fixtures and other fixtures in the place were worth about 
$2,500 additional, and that the license for the unexpired portion of the year had some 
additional value. Mr. Wilson then asked me if I did not think that $19,500 was a 
pretty large price to pay for that establishment. I told him that he must take into 
account the business that was being conducted there and the good will of the place, 
which were perhaps the largest items of value. This was the first time I had ever 
been in Mr. Wilson’s office in the Woodward Building, and I have never been there 
since. He further stated that he had seen Senator Jones, who had instructed him to 
get all the data possible on these excise matters and to bring the information to him 
(Senator Jones) when the Senate convened, and if the information were sufficient he 
(Senator Jones) would have the excise board investigated. Mr. Wilson then asked 
me if I would take him to see the Secretary of State, but I declined-to do so. That 
was the end of the conversation between Mr. Wilson and myself and was substantially 
all that took place. I do not remember whether Mr. Albert E. Shoemaker was present 
on that occasion or not. 

The next time I saw Mr. Wilson was in connection with the Hall case, and while 
the hearing was in progress, and while we were holding night sessions. One night as 
we were leaving the building at nearly midnight, I asked Mr. Wilson if he could not 
bring before the board further testimony on the following evening. He said that he 
could not do so, because he had an engagement with his wife. I told him he should 
have somebody to assist Mr. Shoemaker, but he said that he could not do it. The 
next time I saw Mr. Wilson was about two months ago, and long after all the licenses 
had been issued; I met him in front of the Municipal Building, and I asked him if 
he did not think that in disposing of the licenses the board had done well. He made 
no comment except to say that we might have done better. On this occasion I talked 
with him for not more than a minute or two. I have never had any other talk with 
Mr. Wilson. 

I never told Mr. Wilson to confer with Senator Jones. I did not know Senator 
Jones. Mr. Wilson himself suggested that he would see Senator Jones. I never told 
him I wanted the activities of Gen. Smith or Mr. Baker looked into. I had no thought 
that there was any necessity for such an inquiry, as I had every confidence in both 
those gentlemen. 

I never told Mr. Wilson that Mr. Columbus or Mr. Baker’s son were collecting money 
for Mr. Henry S. Baker, and I never had any such thought in my mind, and never 
believed, and do not believe now, that any such collections were ever made or 
attempted to be made. 

Referring specifically to certain statements made by Mr. Wilson in his testimony 
given yesterday, I desire to state: 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


383 


1. Referring to the Madden case and to the proposed effort of Mr. Madden to recover 
back the sum of $1,000 which he is said to have paid somebody, I never stated that 
Gen. Smith had spent the money and could not pay it back. I have no reason what¬ 
ever to believe and do not now believe that Gen. Smith received any money from Mr. 
Madden or from anybody else in connection with the granting of liquor licenses. 

2. I never stated to Mr. Wilson or to any other person that there was no way to stop 
the excise board except by congressional investigation. The statement that I did so 
state is without foundation. From my observation of my colleagues while I have 
been a member of the board their conduct in the performance of their duties has been 
open and aboveboard and honorable in every respect. 

3. I never stated to Mr. Wilson that it would be better for him not to write to the 
Secretary of State because things were in such a condition that it might not become 
necessary to write either to the Secretary of State or to the President of the United 
States. I never heard of such a thing until Mr. Wilson’s testimony before the com¬ 
mittee on yesterday. 

4. I never stated to Mr. Wilson nor to any other living person that Gen. Smith or Mr. 
Baker had in their possession a great deal of money lately and that I did not know 
where they got it. I never saw either of them with any money in their possession 
except when they received their salaries, and a small amount of cash, five or ten dollars 
in amount. And I specifically deny that I ever made the statement that unless the 
board were restrained Gen. Smith and Mr. Baker, or Gen. Smith, Mr. Baker, and Mr. 
Sheehy, would clean up $100,000. These statements are without one word of truth. 
I never stated, after the granting of the McCarthy license in the Evans Building, that 
Gen. Smith and Mr. Baker had stomachache through nervousness or fear. At or about 
that time I was the only member of the board who was sick, and I was suffering from 
an attack of indigestion, which attack had nothing to do with the granting of license in 
the Evans Building. 

5. I was never in communication with Mr. William H. Manogue in regard to the 
McDonald Building on Pennsylvania Avenue SE. 

6. It is not true that Mr. Andrew Wilson telephoned to me for the purpose of having 
me call at his office. As before stated, the message came to me from my son, W. W. 
Bride, and I specifically deny that I had numerous interviews with Mr. Andrew 
Wilson in his office or elsewhere. 1 met and talked with him onty as before stated. 

Unless it should appear that I have overlooked some of the testimony given before 
the committee, in regard to any misconduct on the part of myself or any member of the 
board, I desire to state generally that I have never known of any improper conduct on 
their part or the exercise upon any member of the board of any improper influence. 

Respectfully, 

Cotter T. Bride. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2d day of March, 1915. 

[seal.] Roger Williams, 

Notary Public , District of Columbia. 


STATEMENT OF MR. BAKER. 

Excise Board for the District of Columbia, 

Washington, March 2, 1915. 

The honorable the Special Committee of the United States Senate on Investigation of the 
Conduct of the Excise Board of the District of Columbia. 

Sirs: As stated by your chairman (p. 379 of the hearings) that Mr. Baker and Mr. 
Bride would put in writing any further testimony which they desired to give, the 
undersigned, one of the members of the excise board, desires to submit the following 
statement under oath: . _ TT tt 

1. I have never been at the Laurel race track m my life, as stated by Mr. H. H. 

Hollander, according to the testimony of Mr. Andrew Wilson; and I have never been 
at any other race track in my life. ... 

2. I have never received any money from collections said to have been made for 
my benefit by my son or by Mr. Columbus. I have never authorized my son or Mr. 
Columbus or anybody else to make any collections of money or any other thing of 
value for me. These statements in the testimony of Mr. Andrew Wilson are wholly 

without foundation. „ „ . ,, 

3. Upon one occasion, in the hearing of the so-called Ebbitt House case and after 
the testimony was concluded and in private conference with the other members of 
the excise board and in the presence of Mr. Albert E. Shoemaker, Gen. Smith stated 



384 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


that in his opinion the evidence given by the witness Wood was not convincing and 
that he would not pay much attention to it, or words to that effect. I then stated 
“Amen! Amen!” 

These are the only specific statements given in the testimony of yesterday that 
relate to me, but I desire to state generally that I deny every statement or insinuation 
of improper conduct upon my part that has been given in evidence by any witness. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Henry S. Baker. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2d day of March, 1915. 

[seal.] Roger Williams, 

Notary Public , District of Columbia. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. FRED H. GEYER. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your business ? 

Mr. Geyer. I am president of the Fred H. Geyer Co. 

The Chairman. Where are you engaged in business ? 

Mr. Geyer. 1827 Fourteenth Street NW. 

The Chairman. What is the character of your business ? 

Mr. Geyer. Cafe and barroom. 

The Chairman. State what you desire to say. 

Mr. Geyer. Mr. Fishback made a statement here that our place of 
business is run at two premises, which I would like to refute. The 
simple statement of the fact is this, that the property has never been 
subdivided on the plats of the District of Columbia and is known as 
1827 Fourteenth Street, and is licensed as such. In fact, when I first 
took charge of the business there, Mr. Shoemaker, I believe, made an 
attempt to have a warrant issued for me in the police court on the 
strength of serving liquors on premises not licensed, when the piece of 
property below the barroom proper was a separate piece of property, 
and the police court attorneys refused to entertain the proposition 
because the property was known and still is known as 1827 Fourteenth 
Street and is licensed as such. 

The Chairman. Are you in fact operating two different bars ? 

Mr. Geyer. No, sir; I have only one bar. 

The Chairman. What is your frontage on Fourteenth Street? 

Mr. Geyer. Sixty feet. 

The Chairman. How many entrances ? 

Mr. Geyer. To the bar room? One. 

The Chairman. Yes; to your whole place of business? 

Mr. Geyer. There is another entrance to the restaurant. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else that you desire to say? 

Mr. Geyer. No; I just wanted to say that we have only one bar on 
the premises. 

The Chairman. Is liquor served in the restaurant? 

Mr. Geyer. Oh, yes. 

The Chairman. From the bar? 

Mr. Geyer. Yes, sir. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JOSEPH G. LEWIS. 

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

The Chairman. What is your full name? 

Mr. Lewis. Joseph G. Lewis. 

The Chairman. Where is your place of business ? 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


385 


Mr. Lewis. 109 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

The Chairman. What is your business ? 

Mr. Lewis. Saloon business. 

The Chairman. Now? 

Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. It has been in the hands of the family since 
1876, but it went out of their hands about twice, and now I have 
had it 19 years. 

The Chairman. Have you a license now? 

Mr. Lewis. No, sir v 

The Chairman. You are not in the saloon business? 

Mr. Lewis. No, sir; I was rejected. 

The Chairman. Why are you out of the saloon business ? 

Mr. Lewis. They rejected me because I was 372 feet from Burgess 
Court. 

The Chairman. When? 

Mr. Lewis. In November. 

The Chairman. It was a renewal, was it ? 

Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir; a renewal. 

The Chairman. And you say it was rejected on the ground that 
you were near an alley—that you were within 372 feet of the alley? 

Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Measured in what way? 

Mr. Lewis. Around the corner. 

The Chairman. From First Street ? 

Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Had you conducted an orderly place of business? 

Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir; never had a complaint. 

The Chairman. Have you ever been in the police court? 

Mr. Lewis. No, sir. 

The Chairman. How long were you in the business? 

Mr. Lewis. Nineteen years; but it was in my father’s family since 
1876, and my brother got it after that, and my brother went out 
of the business and it fell into my hands, and I have had it for 19 
years. The excise board visited my place once, and the second time 
they came back he looked in the barroom and said, in front of four 
witnesses, “This is a place for bums.” I want Mr. Smith to explain 
why it was a place for bums. 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith used that word? 

Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir; in the presence of the other two excise board 
members and four other witnesses. There was never any disorder 
there in that place. 

The Chairman. Gen. Smith, the witness has given certain language 
which he says was used by you in regard to his place. 

Mr. Lewis. In the presence of four witnesses it was that he said 
it, in the bar. 

Mr. Smith. I am not in the habit of using such language. 

Mr. Lewis. You used it there, and I have four witnesses to prove 
it, who are willing to go on the stand and testify to it. 

(The witness was thereupon excused.) 

The Chairman. We will not have any conversation between you 
two. We will adjourn at this point, subject to the call of the chairman. 

(At 5.35 o’clock p. m. the committee adjourned subject to the call 
of the chairman.) 



• 






























' 

' 

- 










- 










. 


' 








. 













. 
















ADDENDA 


By direction of the chairman, the following list, furnished by the 
license clerk of the District of Columbia, of all the hotel licenses 
issued in the District of Columbia, and the following communications 
received by the chairman after the close of the hearings, is here 
printed, as follows: 


Hotels in the District of Columbia. 


Rooms. 


Achterkirchen, Henry, 451 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 30 

* Atlantic Hotel, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 35 

Ball, Irving 0. (Hamilton House), Fourteenth and K Streets NW. 80 

*Bancroft Hotel (H. C. Benson), Eighteenth and H NW. 35 

Bellevue Hotel (Peter Taylor), Fifteenth and Eye NW. 96 

Golden Eagle (Geo. Berger), 400 New Jersey Avenue NW. 30 

*Brown, J. W. (Bennings Hotel), Bennings, D. C. 30 

Bliss, A. L. (Buckingham), 920 McPherson Place NW. 30 

*Buchholz, Gus (Occidental), 1411 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 40 

Colonial Hotel (Cora Burges), 809 Fourteenth NW. 30 

*Byrne, S. E., 300 New Jersey Avenue NW. 30 

Cairo Apartment House Co., 1613 Q Street NW. 76 

Campbell, C. G. (Keystone), 482 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 30 

*Capitol Park Hotel Co., North Capitol and ENW. 149 

*Chaffee, A. W. (Continental), 420 North Capitol Street. 140 

*Cochran Hotel (Eugene S. Cochran), Fourteenth and K Streets NW. 105 

Colton, Mary L. (Tremont), Second and Indiana Avenue NW. 31 

Congress Hall Hotel (S. A. Manuel), New Jersey Avenue between B and C SE. 175 

*DeAtley, John H., 1222 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 30 

Dewey Hotel (Edw. Bronk), 1320 L Street NW. 120 

*Edwards, Chas. W. (Piedmont), 489 Missouri Avenue NW. 30 

Gardiner, Edw. J. (Grand), Fifteenth and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 75 

Gordon, Simon, 470-2 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 30 

Graul, A. C. (Luvois), New Jersey Avenue and C NW. 30 

Haight, Harry S., 1008 E Street NW. 30 

*Harrington Hotel (A. J. Brennan), 432 Eleventh Street NW. 100 

*Harris Hotel (John H. Harris), 15-19 Massachusetts Avenue NW. 95 

*Heath, Chas. K. (Merchants), 485 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 50 

*Herzog, Fritz, Twelfth and E Streets NW. 30 

Heurich, Karl, Wisconsin Avenue Extended. 30 

*Holmes, Jas. O., 331 Virginia Avenue SW. 35 

Hudson Hotel (Wilson Taylor), 1331 H Street NW. 30 

Hurdle, C. H., 329 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 30 

*Hyatt, C. S. & A. B. (Lincoln), Tenth and H Streets NW. 54 

Jackson, F. C. (Ardmore), 516 Fourteenth Street NW. 34 

Leavens, Chas. C. (New Varnum), New Jersey Avenue and C Street SE. 55 

Lyons, Michael M., 906 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 30 

McKee, T. A (Gordon), 916 Sixteenth Street NW. 125 

McKee, T. A. (Metropolitan), 613 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 156 

MacLennan, Alex., 715 Thirteenth Street NW. 30 

*Mades, Chas., 300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 53 

*Marks, Henry M., 1000 E Street NW. 37 

*Michael, Robert (Bismark), 349 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 34 


* Represents those licensed for the year ending Oct. 31,1915. 
84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3-20 


387 














































388 EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Rooms. 

*Miller, Wm. G. (Geo. Washington), Fifteenth Street and New York Avenue NW. 30 

Mills, Geo. (Highlands), Connecticut and California Avenues NW. 30 

*MiUs, Harrington (Grafton), 1139 Connecticut Avenue NW... 65 

*New Capital Hotel (Harry W. Peck), Third Street and Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW. 30 

New Willard Hotel, Fourteenth and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 400 

New Winston Hotel (H. J. Spates), 116 First Street NW. 98 

*Noonan, J. J. (Stag), 608 Ninth Street NW. 30 

*Orbello, F. P. (Driscoll), First and B Streets NW. 100 

*Owens, C. E. (Powhatan), Eighteenth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW... 100 
Raleigh Hotel (E. L. Weston), Twelfth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.. 423 

Richmond Hotel (Jos. B. Jordan), Seventeenth and H Streets NW. 50 

Roman, Floyd A. (Southern), 311 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 30 

*Schladt, Jos., 1236 Wisconsin Avenue NW. 30 

*Schutt, Geo. F. (National), Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW....... 198 

*Schutt, Geo. F. (Ebbitt), Fourteenth and F Streets NW. 176 

Seeley, Mrs. Alex. (Stratford), Fourteenth and Monroe Streets NW. 60 

Sears, Andrew W. (Brunswick), 235 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 30 

Shoreham Hotel (Williard H. Barse), Fifteenth and H Streets NW. 230 

Sparrwardt, Carl O. (Knickerbocker), 1703 New York Avenue NW. 40 

*St. James Hotel (Levi Woodbury), Sixth and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 124 

*Sterling Hotel (J. O. Breast),.Thirteenth and E Streets NW. 75 

Sterne, Lyman P. (Olive), 487 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 30 

Sweet, Nellie (Brighton), 2123 California Street NW. 75 

*Vonderheide, Wm. J., 604 Ninth Street NW. 32 

*Wallace, Chas. (Everett), 1730 H Street NW. 30 

*Walsh, John, 1501 Seventh Street NW. 50 

New Hudnell Hotel (Wash. Polk), 107 Sixth Street NW. 30 

* Weaver, J. H. (Arizona), 310 C Street NW. 31 

West, E. C., 11-19 E Street NW. 30 

*Windolph, John (Summit), 1249 Seventh Street NW. 50 

Zahn, Sarah Y. (Travelers), 487 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 41 

*Zirwes, John (Vendome), Third and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 65 

Wade H. Coombs, 

License Clerk District of Columbia. 


* Represents those licensed for the year ending Oct. 31,1915. 
































LETTER OF ALBERT E. SHOEMAKER TO SENATOR MORRIS SHEPPARD 
DENYING THE STATEMENT THAT THE ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE OP¬ 
POSED ALL APPLICATIONS FOR LIQUOR LICENSES. 

Washington, D. C., March 2, 1915. 

Hon. Morris Sheppard, 

Chairman Special Committee Investigating the Conduct of the 
Excise Board of the District of Columbia, United States Senate. 

Dear Sir: During the hearing before your committee Monday, 
March 1, Mr. Levi Cook, speaking for the liquor interests and in de¬ 
fense of the excise board, said among other things that the Anti- 
Saloon League opposed every application for a license and sought to 
use the present excise law to bring prohibition to the District. 

The statement is untrue and should not go unchallenged. The 
league made no opposition to considerably more than one hundred 
applications for renewal of barroom licenses for the year beginning 
November 1, 1914. The league did not contest those applications, 
for the sole reason that there was not in the possession of the league 
any facts or arguments that might have been properly used against 
them. 

Whenever it appeared that a licensed place was being conducted 
in violation of law; whenever citizens, property owners, and residents 
of a neighborhood remonstrated against the grant of a license; when¬ 
ever a license was asked for a place located in a prohibited place, the 
league resisted the application. 

A careful estimate made by me after measurements and investi¬ 
gations convinced me that not more than 160 barroom licenses could 
be properly granted out of the 409 applications made for the year 
beginning November 1 , 1914, and nothing has since occurred to 
cause a change of that estimate. 

Mr. Cook also stated that the league had opposed an order of the 
excise board which authorized those licensees who had been deprived 
of their licenses November 1, 1914, to dispose of their stocks of 
liquors within 30 days. The league knew nothing of such action of 
the board until the order had been issued. While said action may 
have been the result of sympathy for those who had lost their licenses, 
yet nevertheless I expressed the opinion at the time that the board 
had no power to authorize the sale of intoxicating liquors at any time, 
at any place, by any person, without first issuing to him a regular 
license as provided by law. 

Very respectfully, 

A. E. Shoemaker, 

Attorney Anti-Saloon League, District of Columbia. 

389 


LETTER OF ALEXANDER H. BELL TO SENATOR MORRIS SHEPPARD 

SUBMITTING A COMPILATION TREATING ON THE CONSTRUCTION 

OF THE EXCISE LAW. 

Washington, D. C., March 3,1915. 

Hon. Morris Sheppard, 

Chairman Special Committee to Investigate the Administration of 
the Excise Law by the Excise Board of the District of Columbia, 
United States Senate. 

Dear Sir : I was in receipt at noon to-day of your advice that the 
committee would hold no further hearings and consequently would 
be unable to hear argument by me upon the construction of various 
portions of the excise law that have been in issue before the com¬ 
mittee, but that I could file a brief not later than 4 o'clock this 
afternoon. 

Unfortunately the time is too limited for the preparation of a 
memorandum limited specifically to the points which I understand 
to have been developed in your inquiry. 

I take the liberty, however, of handing you herewith a compilation 
completed by me some time since, treating of the construction of the 
excise act of March 4, 1913. This compilation embodies a compre¬ 
hensive statement of the legislative history of the act, a comparison 
with previous laws, and furnishes all the data for its construction as 
a statute. The index gives full references, and I trust this matter 
may be of assistance to your committee in case it wishes to consider 
the construction of particular provisions of the law. 

I very much regret that I could not have presented a concise oral 
argument, with references, addressed to concrete points, as such a 
statement would probably have been much more convenient to the 
committee than the extensive compilation herewith, or even a com¬ 
pactly drafted memorandum, had there been time for the latter. 
Yours, truly, 


390 


Alexander H. Bell. 


LETTER OF ROBERT I. MILLER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMIT¬ 
TEE TO INVESTIGATE THE EXCISE BOARD RELATIVE TO THE PRES¬ 
ENCE OF GEN. SMITH AT THE RACES IN SARATOGA. 


Washington, D. C., March 2, 1915. 
The Chairman Senate Subcommittee 

Investigating the Excise Board. 

Dear Sir: I notice in the Washington Post of this morning the 
following paragraph in reference to the proceedings before your com¬ 
mittee yesterday: 

Mr. Wilson said that an attorney, Robert I. Miller, had told him Gen. Smith was at 
the races in Saratoga last summer with M. J. Keane and Joseph Sheehy and had lived 
at the United States Hotel. 


I am the Robert I. Miller referred to by Mr. Wilson in his testi¬ 
mony, and I wish to say that I have never met Mr. Wilson, have never 
in my life seen him as far as I know, and have never heard of him by 
reputation or otherwise. 

It follows, therefore, that I have never had any conversation with 
Mr. Wilson, and therefore did not tell him that I had been at Sara¬ 
toga on the occasion in question. If the account of Mr. Wilson’s * 
testimony was correctly quoted, it is inconceivable to me why he 
should volunteer such testimony having absolutely no foundation 
in fact and without the remotest semblance to truth. 

I would prefer to think that Mr. Wilson has been misquoted in the 
newspaper account of his testimony, and have no doubt that such is 
the case, but should the facts be otherwise I am ready at any time to 
deny the statement attributed to me. 

I think it due me that this letter be made a part of the record of 
the proceedings before you and request that that be done. 

Respectfully, 

Robt. I. Miller. 


391 


LETTER OF REV. EDWIN C. DINWIDDIE TO SENATOR MORRIS SHEPPARD 
RELATIVE TO THE TESTIMONY OF LEVI COOKE. 

Washington, D. C., March 3, 1915. 

Hon. Morris Sheppard, 

Chairman Special Committee to Investigate District of Columbia 
Excise Conditions , etc., United States Senate , Washington, 

d. a 

My Dear Senator Sheppard: It was not my original intention to 
ask to say anything before or even file a statement with your com¬ 
mittee in relation to the matters now pending before you. The com¬ 
mittee happens to be composed of five lawyers, all of whom are 
better prepared to construe the so-called Jones-Works law than I am, 
and you will have doubtless heard from many people representing 
both sides of the temperance controversy in the District, so that all 
possible light will have been thrown on the subject before your 
inquiry is concluded. 

However, at the hearing Monday afternoon March 1, Mr. Levi 
Cooke, the representative of the distillers and wholesale liquor dealers 
of the country, made an extended statement before your committee 
which was largely a defense of the trade he represents and, as was 
frankly admitted by him, was chiefly made for its bearing upon the 
temperance situation in the District of Columbia and throughout the 
country at large. I do hot ask to reply to this statement in extenso, 
but in view of what Mr. Cooke said concerning the law-abiding 
character of the liquor trade in general and in the District of Colum¬ 
bia in particular, it has occurred to me that a statement from one 
of the best qualified men to speak on this subject would not be out 
of place in the record of your committee’s proceedings. 

I therefore submit to you herewith a copy of a letter from Maj. 
Dan Morgan Smith, who for some years was the general counsel for 
the Model License League, addressed to Mr. John H. Lyle, of the 
Englewood (Ill.) Law and Order League. The letter follows a brief 
paragraph or two from a newspaper article containing it. 

Maj. Dan Smith Leaves the Model License League and Tells Why— 
“Prohibition Prohibits and Regulation is a Myth.” 

Dan Morgan Smith was formerly general council for the Model License League. 
He made his last wet speech two years ago in West Virginia. His change of view 
on the subject of prohibition has not come suddenly. After his experience in three 
different States, in trying to make good the liquor interests’ promises to the voters 
for model license laws, he was forced to the conclusion that those interests do not 
want improved saloon conditions. 

Mr. Smith was of the honest belief that his model license measures would solve 
the liquor problem. The following is a letter he recently wrote to John H. Lyle, 

392 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 393 


superintendent of the Englewood .Law and Order League, in which he relates his 
experience with the Model License League: 


Law Office of Dan Morgan Smith, Ashland Block, 


Hon. John H. Lyle, 


Chicago, January 15, 1915. 


Chicago. 

. ^ EAK Sir : Your evident surprise at the criticism I made of the liquor forces 
in our recent conversation at Springfield, as well as my desire to make very 
plain my exact views on the subject, prompts me to write this letter. 

As long ago as August or September, 1911, while I was general counsel of the 
National Model License League, I wrote an article for a religious paper pub¬ 
lished in Columbus, Ohio, on “ What Is Temperance,” commencing: 

/ “ Drunkenness is abhorrent. 

Intemperance is deplorable. 

Its attendant evils regrettable. 

Therefore I seek a remedy.” 

This article was widely reprinted in the States and in Europe, for it was 
probably the frankest admission of the evils of strong drink ever publicly made 
by a paid advocate of the liquor interests. 

In this article I advanced the theory that “ Regulation that regulates is 
preferable to prohibition that does not prohibit ”—a theory that I am now con¬ 
vinced can never be tested, for the liquor interests have consistently thwarted 
“ Regulation that regulates,” and in Kansas prohibition prohibits. 

The voters in at least three States have demonstrated that they, too, have lost 
faith in the promises of the liquor interests to pass proper regulating laws. 

As general counsel of the National Model License League, I was one of two princi¬ 
pal speakers against the State-wide prohibition bill pending in Virginia. I addressed 
the joint meeting of the senate and house and with the full authority of my employers 
promised the aid of the liquor interests in the passage of a law that would regulate. 
The bill was defeated, but the law was never introduced—the promise was broken, 
and now Virginia is dry. 

I stumped the State of West Virginia, promising that a law would be passed that 
would “take the liquor interests out of politics and the lawbreaker out of the liquor 
business.” The voters believed us, the State voted wet, and again the promise was 
broken. Two years ago I made in West Virginia the last speech I ever made for the 
wets, the same conditions that we promised to pure obtained, the same gambling 
houses were run by the same saloon keepers, over the same saloons; the same men 
were in the same manner defying the same laws of men, the laws of decency, and the 
laws of God. The liquor interests had failed to help pass “Regulation that regu¬ 
lates,” and West Virginia went dry. 

In 1910 I spoke all over Oregon, and, as did the other speakers on the wet side, I 
promised a law that would force the saloon keeper to law obedience or force him out 
of the saloon business. Oregon went wet by over 10,000. I drafted the model 
license, as promised, but the very interests that promised it refused or failed to pass 
it, and now Oregon is dry. The voters lost faith in the promise of the liquor interests, 
even as I have lost faith. 

With the approval of my former employers, I have advocated the passage of a 
model license law in the ;press of every State of the Union. On their behalf I made 
speeches favoring or promising its passage in Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, 


Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minne¬ 
sota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, 
Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington; but there is not a 
model license law in the statutes of any State in the Union. Is it insincerity or 
inability? It matters little, for unless a prescription is filled it can never effect 


a cure. 

The liquor interests may be divided into three classes: First, those who truly 
desire reform for the sake of their consciences. Second, those who are willing 
to accept reform because they have heard the mandate of his majesty, the con¬ 
scientious voter, “ Clean up or clear out.” Third, those who will thwart real 
reform because they are too brainless to see the need of it, too arrogant to yield 
to it, too lawless to wish it, and too powerful to have it thrust upon them. As 
they will not reform they must be eliminated. 

It having been demonstrated to my entire satisfaction that “ regulation that 
regulates ” will never be, and that “ prohibition that prohibits ” is, upon what 
theory could I now defend the liquor interests? 

Personal liberty? No, for while personal liberty is a splendid thing to advocate 
when the speaker desires “ loud and continued applause,” no thinking man ever 
mistakes license for liberty. Liberty may be defined as the greatest possible free- 


394 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


dom of the individual, consistent with the rights of others, and the rights of others 
can not be evaded, for there is no person so lowly, so lonely, but that his example 
exerts some measure of influence upon others. If the State has the right to incarce¬ 
rate a tramp because he chooses to loaf instead of work, it has the right to take away 
from him that which will, if Used immoderately, make a loafer of him. If the Gov¬ 
ernment has a right to save the Chinese from the effects of opium by so restricting its 
sale as to make it in fact impossible to lawfully procure it, that same Government has 
the right to prevent its citizens from the evils of liquor by forbidding its manufacture. 

Can I defend it upon the foolish plea of what shall become of the saloon keeper 
and his help? No, for thanks be, I have always had the sense to know that the 
voters did not care what become of them, even if they have to go to work. But how 
about economic reasons? I never urged economic grounds for voting wet. I always 
insisted that neither taxation nor the sale of grain, neither the possibility of the tem¬ 
porary loss of rents nor the loss of surrounding trade should or could prevent the 
decent man from voting as his conscience dictated. And, too, the logical speaker 
hesitates to prove such losses. 

The Bible argument? It is true that the Bible says “Take a little wine for thy 
stomach’s sake, and for thine often infirmities,” and many passages of the Bible 
seem to prove that Christ made and used wine; but I had to abandon that line of 
argument for the public resented the use of the Bible in that connection, and, too, 
there is reason to believe that if He were on earth again He would treat the saloon 
keeper as he did the money changers. 

I do not know why He made wine nor why He drank it; neither do I know why 
He made the stunted oak amid the tall trees of the forest nor why He comforts the 
disconsolate widow when he could have saved her husband for her arms, i do not 
know. I can not understand why He carpets the earth with the beautiful but cruel 
snow instead of the lovely violet. His ways are beyond my finite mind, but I do 
know that I am my brother’s keeper, for He said so. I do know that He gave us 
intellect above the beast, that we might use it to promote happiness on earth and 
eternal salvation. No, I can never again quote the word of the Lord Jesus Christ for 
the preservation of the liquor interests, for He has consigned the drunkard to 
damnation and the hypocrite to hell. I will neither be one or the other. 

And so fails me each argument that once seemed so plausible, for the foundation 
of my faith and the corner stone of my arguments was the success of regulation and 
the failure of prohibition; and with the failure of regulation and the success of pro¬ 
hibition, my faith is gone and my corner stone displaced; my structure has fallen, 
and it remains for me to help build another, founded on a new faith with a corner 
stone as enduring as truth, and that faith shall be called temperance and the corner 
stone shall be annihilation. 

This is no new resolution. I made my last speech for them over two years ago. 
I shall never make another on their behalf. I am through with the wet side. My 
intelligence insists upon it. My conscience demands it. 

I am, my dear sir, 

Yours, very truly, Dan Morgan Smith. 

Trusting that you will extend the courtesy of incorporating this 
article in the printed hearings before your committee, I remain, 
Very sincerely, yours, 

Edwin C. Dinwiddie, 

Legislative Superintendent. 


I 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 









LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 


LETTER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO SENATOR MORRIS SHEPPARD 
TRANSMITTING MEASUREMENTS TO CERTAIN SALOONS IN THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

[These illustrations are furnished pursuant to the request of the chairman of the committee printed on 

page 22.] 

Office Commissioners of the District of Columbia, 

Washington , March 2, 1915. 

Hon. Morris Sheppard, * 

United States Senate. 

My Dear Senator Sheppard: In compliance with the request 
contained in your letter of February 22, 1915, addressed to Mr. M. C. 
Hazen, District surveyor, requesting that official to measure the 
distances in feet between the saloons and houses of religious worship, 
public schoolhouses, colleges, and universities mentioned in said 
letter, following the shortest course a person may walk from entrance 
to entrance over a public right of way, the commissioners have the 
honor to forward herewith plats showing the measurements requested. 

In all cases the measurements have been made diagonally at the 
street crossings and eighteen inches from all obstructions. 

Very respectfully, 

Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, 
By O. P. Newman, President. 


396 



EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


397 


K 


•ST. ALOYS/US 
CHURCH 

S/OE CHTf)ANC£. T9 


\ _ y 

\ 

/\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 


\ 

\ 

\> 

\0 

'O 

v> 

\s» 

\ 

\ 





_/ 

DE FREES 57. 


\ 


J 


Wdsb.,D-C. 



tysrc/?. . -?■' ^ /9/S 
Prepared/h fai o fa/ce 
O / fag Jl/TPV/OY, DC 


H 


I 

i 

>3 


jj: 

ii 


\s 


ST. 


0 





\E 


\ STOW POOR (fPAMc) 


AU£H 

007 H CAR ST 


ST 


V- 

LU 

UJ 

cc 

H 

(/) 

_l 

O 

H 

cl 

< 

o 

I 

f- 

Q£ 

O 

Z 

r-* 

o 

oo 

z~ 

LU 


z 

I 

o 

















































































V 


















' 
















> 





* 




m 

sml 

. 





































v 





































* 



v i 


■ 


t 




















































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


399 



/ 


MICHAEL DALY, 1319 SEVENTH STREET NW, 






























































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


401 



/ 






















































✓ 










• 















. 























. 

















■ X 











. 

































• ' • 


. 

























































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


403 



84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3 


■27 


AUGUST H. PLUGGE, 1317 SEVENTH STREET NW. 


























































; 

























: *> 










Mi 















« 

























































































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


405 


i 



























































































































EXCISE BOABD OP THE DISTBICT OP COLUMBIA. 


407 
































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


409 





PATRICK J. MCDONALD, 643 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE SE. 






































































. 





















































■ i s 






























































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


411 



JOHN J. GRAFF, 222 SEVENTH STREET SE 






















































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 413 



& JEREMIAH COSTELLO, 600 G STREET NW. 






































































' 









* 


























































































































-r 


























• * * . 



























































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


415 



MARGARET CASEY, 114 H STREET NW. 
















































































































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


417 



JOHN T. O’DAY, 921 NINTH STREET NW. 







































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


419 




84513°—S. Doc. 981, 63-3 


28 


JOHN F. SCHRINER, 730 FOURTEENTH STREET NW. 
























































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


421 



MARY T. SCHULZ, 607 G STREET NW. 

































































































































































#QJ.yVQH/K7 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


423 



JOHN F. KILLEEN. 1314 WISCONSIN AVENUE NW. 

































































































































































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


425 



CHARLES H. MORRIS, 2029 K STREET NW. 































’ 




























































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


427 



H 


$ C 


oo 


STREET, 


Wash- £>. C 

March, Z/)d,../5>/5 

fre^^reH/a /he office o/~7fe 

*Soryeyor f £>■ C. 


b 


ej 

K 


STREET 

SL u£BL? 




I /?wrT/A '6 


-- 7 

SlCt £HTR, 

041 VAX Y &4P7/S-, 
O/t/ACU 


h 




NORTH 




/? 

/ o 


SNOOKS 
625- 7# Pin* 




NORTH 




ROBERT H. SNOOK, 825 SEVENTH STREET NW. 
































































































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 429 



FRANK C. POCH, 900 FOUR-AN D-A-H ALF STREET SW. 






































































































































































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


431 







HUGH F. HARVEY, 1913 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW. 











































, . . 














- 





























• . . 




-* •• » 




V * 























































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


433 



JOHN E. MERGNER, 415 EAST CAPITOL STREET. 











































































































































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


435 



84513°—S. Doc.981,63-3-29 


JOHN J. DALY, 306 SIXTH STREET NW. 







































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


437 



LUTHER H. McMILLAN, 1421 G STREET NW. 








































































































































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



439 


FRANK L. ASH, 1330 TWENTY-EIGHTH STREET NW. 












































. i . ... : , ..... . ... .. . . 












































































c vn & 


EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


441 





df-ec 


EUGENE T. LYDDANE, 1422 WISCONSIN AVENUE NW. 





































































. - • . r . m . . x 'b y., <i " •• 




































































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


443 



HENRY S. BYRD AND MARTIN J. BARRY, 521 G STREET NW. 


























































■ 




* ■ 













« 


»v 






■ 


T 




.. ■ : • . . ■ • • T' 





















































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 445 




I 

& 



/6-m. 


STREET, MW 

-’—--5»-X 


WILLIAM HANNAN, 1519 SEVENTEENTH STREET NW. 























































. . • . 














































































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


447 



MICHAEL H. RAFTERY, 1908 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW. 


/9-TH. ! STREET. WEST 



















































• . r ... 








' Vrr- \ 

















' ■■ ' * ' • ‘ ■ * : V* • * 

u • ■ ■' •' : . .v ■ ■ 




• • V. 




























































EXCISE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


449 















































































































































































, 


* 






* 














■ 


' 



























, 










. 

' 

' 























■ 

■ 














■ 



















♦ 

. • 









■ 




























































* 























V 




































. . 


















. 











. 






























































































